Got email from Scott Brown: H.R. 823

[Master Shooter]

I 100% disagree with you here, Bill. How can states determine whether or not you can defend yourself? The issue of self-defense doesn't stop at an imaginary line in the sand, but states like Ma, Ca, Hawaii, Illinois, DC, Maryland, NJ, NY, etc seem to believe that. And notice the states that are bitching about this? They're the same states that "May Issue" and will destroy you if you ever actually needed to use said defense. Again, look to Swampscott, Lowell, Wilburham, etc.

No, Bill, the legislative a**h***s on Beacon Hill can kiss the darkest part of my lily-white ass if they continue to lie about this being a "state right". It's anything but the right of a state to determine whether we're allowed to defend ourselves or not. Remember, it "shall not be infringed", yet with your statement, you're validating their infringing. Look to England for how far that infringement went...

I'm friends with a Lt at the Norwood police department (Just south of Boston) who told me about a soldier, who served for 10 years, came home and moved from western MA to Norwood. He had a LTC-A ALP and re-applied for the permit as it was set to soon expire. The Norwood Police Chief disallowed All Lawful Purposes to the soldier (I don't remember what branch he served under) and gave him one restricted to Target shooting only. He also told me a story about a "gun nut" who had a similar situation (Class A LTC, ALP) moving in from another town and re-applied for his LTC. This time, the chief didn't allow it. There was no legal reason, no felony or misdemeanor of any kind, the guy has had a proper license for years, and the COP straight up wouldn't allow the guy to have a permit. He either had to move to another town and try again, or turn in his (large) collection of firearms. IIRC from my third hand knowledge, this guy sued but I think he wound up moving out anyway. I'm full of stories like this, and worse, and it's the reason why I'm getting my ass to NH.

So I completely agree with you, and disagree with Bill. If Bill actually believes the stuff he's saying, he should start petitioning that states no longer recognize the licenses (Of any kind, including drivers) of other states.

 

[ohms]

I partially agree with that. However, the problem is that some states are not giving everyone the opportunity to be licensed (CCW). Many states are still May Issue and some don't accept non-resident applications (unless you own property in the state). Some states (MA) makes it very difficult for non-residents to even apply. If all states were Shall Issue and there was a simple process of applying as a non-resident, I agree this is somehting the Feds should stay out of. However, we all know this is not the case. It's not a perfect bill, but it's much better than the alternative we have today.

Why aren't we asking them to change/modify it into a shall issue bill, instead of accepting this crap?

We are not limited to the existing BS bills out there. We've only limited our discussion, rather than demanding what we already know we have a right to.

 

[bolt]

654

 

[sportycliff]

For the record, I think he did vote against Kagan.

Given that there is ZERO chance of MA sending a hardcore conservative to the senate, I think even a republican who isn't hardcore is better than the moonbat alternative. Remember that the voting agenda is controlled by the party with the majority.

No he didn't vote for Kagan.

A Republican who isn't "hardcore" is a RINO, and in MA they are as much a moonbat as the others. Again, DON'T SETTLE! It solves nothing, except to make you feel as if you've done something.

Hey, it's your vote...

 

[swampy]

I wrote perhaps half a dozen times not including the response to the letter everyone else just received. Some people just don't get it and will never get it. Are senators eligible for unemployment when they get voted out of office? I'm not looking forward to 20+ years of Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Cardinal Ximinez]

The D or R next to the name is a false dillema. It's all about surviving and staying in office. They're not out to change jack shizzle. The status quo is the goal. If you're gonna criticize the junior senator, criticize him for that.

I actually have. Scott Brown is a careerist. Saw tons of these guys when I was in the military.

Everything is about reelection. Principles? Doing what's right? Helping the country? I seriously doubt that even comes up when he's trying to triangulate every issue.

It's really time to dump all these guys and gals whether they are Democrat, Republican, etc. However, we keep reelecting them and wondering why things are so messed up. Go figure, eh?

 

[joeendris]

I actually have. Scott Brown is a careerist. Saw tons of these guys when I was in the military.

Everything is about reelection. Principles? Doing what's right? Helping the country? I seriously doubt that even comes up when he's trying to triangulate every issue.

It's really time to dump all these guys and gals whether they are Democrat, Republican, etc. However, we keep reelecting them and wondering why things are so messed up. Go figure, eh?

Write me in, in his place. I'm game.

 

[newportri]

Why aren't we asking them to change/modify it into a shall issue bill, instead of accepting this crap?

We are not limited to the existing BS bills out there. We've only limited our discussion, rather than demanding what we already know we have a right to.

Well, someone put in the existing bill, someone who has more political power than the most of us.

 

[OfficerObie59]

There exists, at present, NO right to bear concealed arms under the constitution as recognized by the courts.
Nor is there likely to BE such a recognized right anytime in the near future.

So you're for forcing individual states to recognize a license (that's permission from ONE state) in their state, even when their state is wildly different and has seperate standards for such licenses.

The Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. As I'm sure you know, the McDonald decision puts a limit on what the states can do by incorporating the 2nd Amendment via the 14th Amendment's due process (and should you prefer Justice Thomas' logic, the PorI clause).

But that's the minimum at the moment. The result of that incorporation is that Congress now has the right to further enforce and define what the 2nd Amendment means as it applies to the states via section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Katzenbach v. Morgan reinforces this argument as applied to the ability of Congress to expand rights past what the court has recognized.

I hear all these impassioned arguments based on the 10th Amendment regarding "states rights" (a term that has always struck me as bullshit--people have rights, governments have powers...go no further than the 10th Amendment), but they seem to forget the 10th amendment only applies where enumerated powers are silent, and like it or not, section 5 of the 14th amendment is one of them (enumerated powers exist in many of the amendments, not just in Art. II, sec. 8). Since the court has made the 2nd amendment applicable against the states, Congress can now enforce it with legislation--as they are doing here.

You can argue about the merits of the law and whether it's a good idea, but any argument that it somehow violates states rights has no basis in law.

If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government.

But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.

Or what if Montana wanted to reinsititute "literacy tests" to vote? Or what if Montana passes a law barring citizens from voting for the president, that party bosses will tell electoral college electors how to vote? The protection against both those issues only comes from Congressional legislation, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (according to Bush v. Gore, citizens have no constitutionally protected right to vote for presidential electors)--would you consider Congress' passage or the existence of preemptive federal law a violation of the Montana's prerogative?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knob Creek]

He's moving to the center even more to get re-elected. Now he's complaining about GOP House members who voted against their dopey 2 month extension.

 

[Serapis]

I just responded to his Christmas greeting . We'll see if I hear back from him . Funny he's not wearing his barn coat in the Christmas video , but he'll wear it to Jon Davies funeral . He's an idiot. At the funeral he made John Kerry look good and he doesn't even realize it .

I thought the EXACT same thing when I saw him there. The man is an asshat and a fraud. Take his jacket and his truck and drive elsewhere.

 

[Serapis]

There exists, at present, NO right to bear concealed arms under the constitution as recognized by the courts.
Nor is there likely to BE such a recognized right anytime in the near future.

So you're for forcing individual states to recognize a license (that's permission from ONE state) in their state, even when their state is wildly different and has seperate standards for such licenses.


That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.

There is no difference.

If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government.

But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.

FAIL

 

[BMass]

Food for thought: similar situation on states licensing rights.

I believe Maryland raise the age to get drivers license to 18 yrs.old on Oct 09'.
So does that mean a Mass. teen who's 17 yrs lod driving thru Maryland is breaking the law??

 

[sig2009]

This guy is a "tool". Why do you people bother emailing him! It will accomplish nothing!