National Concealed Carry

[Jim85IROC]

MONEY

That's how every Liberal sick agenda is pushed.

Conservatives can play that game.

Yup. Best example of this is the "Click It or Ticket" campaign. The Fed wanted seatbelt laws in all 50 states in order to appease the Insurance Company lobby, and did it by threatening to take federal highway funding away from any state that didn't choose to voluntarily enact their own seatbelt law.

 

[CaseHardened]

I doubt it. Even if Trump picks 3 pro gun justices (EG: Scalia, Ginsburg, Kennedy seats (if he's not a total douchebag he will retire before trump leaves office) the court as a generality will be loathe to pick up another RKBA case unless its exceptionally well engineered with regards to merit, etc. Heller was literally an arrow fired through a very long pipe that managed to transit the pipe without hitting the sides, and god like engineers built the arrow, the bow, and the man who fired it. Anything but an exceptionally well engineered case will make it that far. It has to be so good that the court will be embarassed by not granting cert. Given the pending composition of congress its really time to hold these mother****ers feet to the fire. We can't have a repeat of the Bush era with GOP domination and ONE ****ING PRO GUN LAW gets passed, what a shit show. They could pound out a very simple FOPA / NICS / NFA improvement act in a day and pass that shit, all with things that even most center democrats wouldn't even find objectionable, and probably keep it revenue neutral on top of that.

While I'm wishing for faries and unicorns, how about some scotus nominations involving jurists under 50 that respect the constitution and civil rights, yet don't have all the social conservative BS attached to them? The bonus here is that they might not have the baggage attached to them typically associated with hard core conservatives. The moonbats will look like retards every time they whine about his picks, which would be a gift that keeps on giving for almost a generation.


-Mike

You may doubt it, Mike.

But on Tuesday something happened that was far, far more unlikely than National CC.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A lot of those places though aren't even felonies to carry there, and more or less amount to nothing more than a
nuisance, from a functional perspective.

-Mike

True, though if any jail time is theoretically possible, someone caught violating a restriction become a lifetime PP in MA, which may or may not be relevant.

I know it's a $25 fine in MN, and the law states that the weapon may not be forfeited as part of the punishment.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Now is the time. I have no illusions, this will be a fight, but this is the time - and we need to fight for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sounds great until you have a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist president, House and Senate. Then they start passing national gun control laws. As far as I am concerned we need SCOTUS to stand up to the states and the feds and emphatically state that the RIGHT to keep and Bear arms REMAINS with the people and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Cabinetman]

No. No one should support this. You don't give the federal government power to give you permission to carry a gun.

If you want to carry everywhere legally, support repealing laws, not adding to them. Supporting an idea like this is so short sighted I don't even know where to begin. Do you want a Dem president a few years later adding ridiculous requirements and suitability to such a permit?

Don't support government expansion.

+++!

I never favor giving Congress more power than they currently have already. I want them to have less. Giving them the yeah or nay over something a national reciprocity law is dangerous. Sure, while we're in power were fine but the minute a lefty gets in there with the right mix of congress, out the door it goes or some major restrictions. There has to be another way to force states to adhere to the Constitution but national reciprocity is not the way to go, imho.

Rome

 

[CaseHardened]

+++!

I never favor giving Congress more power than they currently have already. I want them to have less. Giving them the yeah or nay over something a national reciprocity law is dangerous. Sure, while we're in power were fine but the minute a lefty gets in there with the right mix of congress, out the door it goes or some major restrictions. There has to be another way to force states to adhere to the Constitution but national reciprocity is not the way to go, imho.

Rome

I do not believe Congress has anything to do with it.

SCOTUS does.

- - - Updated - - -

sounds great until you have a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist president, House and Senate. Then they start passing national gun control laws. As far as I am concerned we need SCOTUS to stand up to the states and the feds and emphatically state that the RIGHT to keep and Bear arms REMAINS with the people and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Unless the 2A is somehow repealed, only SCOTUS matters.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

No. No one should support this. You don't give the federal government power to give you permission to carry a gun.

If you want to carry everywhere legally, support repealing laws, not adding to them. Supporting an idea like this is so short sighted I don't even know where to begin. Do you want a Dem president a few years later adding ridiculous requirements and suitability to such a permit?

Don't support government expansion.

I wasn't going to say anything on this topic but as a somewhat of an outsider I thought I would add my perspective. I think that Donald Trump is right on the money and let me explain why.

There are essentially 2 ways we can get our rights back, one is very hard and will take years if not decades but the better way is incrementalism, just like liberals do.

Most liberal policies usually end up being inherently unconstitutional. This means that they end up having to fight off their policy in court for victory. But they are oftentimes more shrewd than this. They also know when to fold and call it a day. I have seen this time and time again.

1). If we (meaning us people of the gun) wanted to win in the courts we would have to show harm and being treated unequally. In the meantime suppose the perfect case comes along, something right out of a New jersey nightmare, and the accused pushes the case higher and higher, bearing in mind that this innocent person is in jail. What are the chances of settling for early release in exchange for a lesser crime or for that matter a very narrow court decision. Suppose it makes it all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court says reciprocity exists in NJ but doesn't say anything else. What about the other 49 states? The way I see it is that the going through the courts requires a perfect case and answering 35 what-ifs correctly. There is one path to victory and 34 paths to defeat.

2). National reciprocity to me can kill a couple of things with one fell swoop, provided congress has the cajones to do it. Maybe with a Trump bully pulpit, he might get congress to act. He certainly has the power of the veto and that's something he can hold over congress. What I like about national reciprocity is that magazine restrictions are null and void. Assault weapon bans are also null and void. Congress could even reinforce this with appropriate language and call it the Healey amendment to remove states from using federal laws to enforce state laws.

My thoughts are that this should be a two pronged solution. One is to work towards getting reciprocity passed. Hell I bet the Fudds would sign on to it since many would like to travel out of state to go hunting. Second is work through the courts but don't get your hopes up. Maybe the woman who was arrested recently in NJ is the perfect case to bring to the supreme court to highlight that no right ends at the state line. Maybe on the other hand, NJ will drop charges, end the fight and let her go, so the case falls apart. They are smart, do not underestimate them. They have boxed us in very nicely and using a nuclear option isn't going to work unless that perfect case is out there winding it's way through the courts right now.

If we are victorious in court then national reciprocity is not needed and the law vindicates what we knew all along. Maybe it even becomes moot. Maybe it's focused even more, maybe we get another vague decisions that liberals can drive a truck through. Remember that part.

Do I believe that the constitution is my gun permit? Yeah of course otherwise I wouldn't be here. Is that a suitable defense in a court of law? No, it's a guaranteed loser when facing down a small army of liberal AGs and lawyers in court. The absolute single best way to beat a liberal is to use their own tactics back on them. They want to chip away at our rights, then fine we chip away at their laws little by little, until they are gone.

 

[robjax]

This pissed about 63 million off....let's hope he can do it...

http://reagancoalition.com/articles...or-2nd-amendment-leaves-millions-furious.html

 

[wahsben]

Yes, but I believe they also mentioned reasonable restrictions. One persons reasonable is anothers extreme.Left open to interpretation it still allows lots of gun control.

This excerpt from supreme.justia.com

District of Columbia v. Heller
554 U.S. 570 (2008)

...

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wahsben]

Yes, any government official that infringes upon the right gets their day in court and if found guilty gets plenty of time in jail.

sounds great until you have a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist president, House and Senate. Then they start passing national gun control laws. As far as I am concerned we need SCOTUS to stand up to the states and the feds and emphatically state that the RIGHT to keep and Bear arms REMAINS with the people and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

- - - Updated - - -

This!

I do not understand why you are stuck on a platform or a license when none of the states who have Con Carry have done so with either. It is the very absence of a license that we are after: Legislation that enforces Heller on a national scale. The right to carry a firearm concealed outside your home without any license. THAT is national Constitutional Carry.

What you are talking about is reciprocity and that is a huge huge huge NO.

I have not lived most of my life with Homeland & TSA so I feel for you.

 

[scottb]

Yes, but I believe they also mentioned reasonable restrictions. One persons reasonable is anothers extreme.Left open to interpretation it still allows lots of gun control.

That is certainly true, but the entire bill of rights, from the very beginning, has always been under assault by those forces that want to restrict the freedoms guaranteed therein. The 2nd amendment is not unique in that regard. The bill of rights wasn't even going to be in the constitution. Madison (he was a proponent of a strong federal government at that point in his political life), thought that it would quiet the fears of anti-federalist (who did not trust a strong federal government) that the limited federal government powers outlined (and they were if you read the plain words - but we know how that goes...) in the constitution would eventually be expanded and threaten individuals rights (and those fears where/are obviously justified). Madison thought the inclusion of the bill of rights would increase the possibility that the constitution would be ratified (which was of no certainty after the constitutional convention). I would argue that the new debate over gun rights is because 2nd amendment supporters have reached a higher level, as it were, because of Heller and 'incorporation'. The ACLU spents most of its time fighting off attacks on the 1st Amendment. While they can't seem to muster the same support or passion (which is why they don't get a dime from me) for the 2nd amendment, the NRALI, COMM2A, GOAL, etc. are fighting in the same league and on the same field.