How about a free man has the right to self defense, and the government can go F itself
This. It was never an issue until the Gov. infested itself in it.
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.
How about a free man has the right to self defense, and the government can go F itself
The states argument is B.S.
We all know the states don't have any more right to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights than the federal government. This was the whole point of the Heller and McDonald descisions. These state legislators are ignoring the supreme court ruling by thinking they have the right to infringe where the feral government does not.
What is wrong with a civil suit against a legislator who tries to pass laws that infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights?
Indeed - that's been my fear all along. Similar issue with allowing amendments to the Constitution...Look at how LEOSA was Crafted and Morffed, Started out as a "Clean Bill". When it reached the senate the Shithead Senator from Jersy, Lautenberg put his amendment too it, that required annual Qual. in the state that the retiree resides, and that letter must be carried with you as well. So plan on something like that happening here.
You are so wrong it's hard to even solidify an argument against your ludicrous position.
This bill does NOT state that congress unequivocal position is that all citizens have a right to bear arms. Period. End of story.
It mandates, against all law, precedent and history, that the FEDERAL government has authority to mandate that individual states must relinquish all authority to regulate their permission to bear arms CONCEALED within their states to ANY other state, regardless of THEIR regulations permitting concealed arms.
That's a fundamental slap in the face to the tenth amendment to the constitution and ANY consideration of a state's individual rights separate from and independent of the Federal government.
This IS NOT an issue within the federal government's authority absent an amendment to the constitution, or a ruling by the Supreme Court.
What you think the 2a's meaning OUGHT to be means SQUAT.
There are two mechanisms to ensure our right to bear arms.
1. A supreme Court Ruling.
2. A constitutional amendment.
Dopung anything else just empowers the federal government to do anything it wants (Or what is it you DO object to Obama care based on?)
Do it right.
This is a bad bill that won't pass the Senate and would be vetoed (and NOT over-ridden ) if passed.
The Republicans who voted against it.. No real shockers there based on where they are from...
All the republican voted for it.
Lets see if ALL the republicans in the Senate vote for it!
The "clean bill" (much to my surprise) doesn't grant more rights (rights aren't granted), but rather forces states to respect the rights of non-residents.The US government rarely does anything to grant more rights to its citizens, that is the opposite of the function of government in the modern age.
The states right argument is BS. Whats gives the states a right to infringe upon the second amendment in the first place. That said I don't really support this bill anyways as I believe the Federal Government shouldn't have any say in it either. We don't need a Bill we have an amendment. How about the Feds make it so states can't infringe on the second amendment and they stop doing it themselves.
Sadly, it even allows for states that do not have a permit/allow CC to continue to treat non-residents as criminals for visiting their state.You contradict yourself. This bill in fact validates the state's rights to place limitations on 2A by validating their right to place restrictions on who can CC.
Think it through: The bill allows someone with a CC permit from one state to CC in any state requiring a permit - thus validating the concept of a permit for CC.
People seem to have the same problem here that they have with litigation. They want everything at once. What has accomplished more so far in the gun rights fight? Shouting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" over and over, or working incrementally? When the constitutional carry bill in WI couldn't get enough votes, should we have given up for the session instead of passing the shall issue permit bill because the shall issue bill validates the concept of a permit for CC? Over 5 million people who couldn't before can now legally exercise their right to self defense. Do you SNBI types not think of that as progress?
NOT one Massachusetts rep voted FOR it. And Sen. Scott Brown said he will not vote for it either.
They all suck
Dan Long
*******Warren will trash Brown no matter what he does, the only difference is now we (Gun Owners) are no longer a lock for him and probably a blank on the ballot - like I'll be doing.
Good job Sen. Brown - good luck in your next job.
I can see all those NRA instructors, salivating, as they start to count the money that will be coming in from all those "Students" that have to have annual quals with each "type" of firearm they plan to carry.
State do not have rights.and no one who posted cares about states rights?
I would say the vote in Congress says otherwise... That's far from a "party line" vote.While I'm disappointed in Brown, this bill never had a chance of passing, and I like Brown a whole lot better than I like Warren.
I disagree. IMO, it will not pass in the Senate. In the unlikely event that it does pass, Obama will veto it and we don't have a 2/3rds majority to override.I would say the vote in Congress says otherwise... That's far from a "party line" vote.
State do not have rights.
Anyone who speaks of "states rights" does not understand the concept of rights.
States have authority and many police powers. The 14th Amendment says that the states can't use their authority to curtail individuals' rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.