Big win for believers in the Constitution.

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[NYcarbineer]

The House voted to allow concealed carry across state lines. Now the bill moves to the Senate where 2nd Amendment hating democrats will hold their breaths until they turn blue.

House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate

So much for 'State's Rights'

Yeah, we felt the same way in my state when gay marriage invaded. We had a vote on SSM years earlier and it was voted down, but the courts believed their ruling overrides our vote.

Interesting that you point that out.

In this case you have Congress telling the states what they must do.
In the case of the 'gay marriage'- and also gun rights- we had the Supreme Court telling states that they cannot have unconstitutional laws.

Not really. In this case you have Congress that wants to tell states what they can't do. No different than gay marriage.

There is one difference. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was a right. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have the right to regulate guns without violating the 2nd amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The House voted to allow concealed carry across state lines. Now the bill moves to the Senate where 2nd Amendment hating democrats will hold their breaths until they turn blue.

House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate

No, not really a “Big win for believers in the Constitution.”.

The Constitution clearly and explicitly describes the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing this right. This bill does nothing to oppose the corrupt notion that this is not a right, but a privilege, to be granted or denied at the pleasure of government.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, what you are seem to be saying is that there should be no state gun laws, that they should all be Federal?
or are you saying there should be no laws governing firearms at all?

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

Compare with the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, those that belong to the states, and those that belong to the people.

To whom does the right/power described in the Second Amendment belong? The Second Amendment is explicit on this point. It belongs to the people. That means that it does not belong to the states, nor does it belong to the federal government, and all levels of government are forbidden from infringing this right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The default defense for federally mandated social crap is the supremacy clause, funny how it doesn't apply to guns and dope in the minds of regressives. Hypocrite much?.

The Supremacy clause only applies to powers which the Constitution explicitly assigns to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment is clear, on the point that any powers not thus assigned belong to the states or to the people, and that the federal government acts illegally in any instance in which it attempts to claim or exercise any powers not explicitly assigned to it.

The Supremacy clause does not override the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, there should be no laws dealing with arms (not just guns but all arms since the Constitution clearly says arms) at all except those that take away the right due to a crime? Is that your position?

Where, in the words, …the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”, do find the authority of government to infringe the right being described?

Also, what gives the courts the power to take away a right given to every citizen by the constitution?

Same thing that gives them the power to remove one's physical liberty (send one to jail), to impose fines, or even to take one's life, when convicted of a crime.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The local marshall just quit stating that as the main reason...Too many armed folks he said...Eh I am sure nothing but good will come from it...

Good.

If he cannot stand the idea of law-abiding citizens being allowed to freely exercise an explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right, then he has no business being in law enforcement. He's not qualified for the job, and it is better that the job be filled by one who is qualified for it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to bear arms is, the right to hide them on your person is not.

Where, in the text of the Second Amendment, which forbids government from infringing the people's right to bear arms, do you find the authority for government to dictate the manner in which arms may be borne?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

States rights are a part of the Constitution as well. That seems to elude you people. Maybe the states should work on reciprocity agreements among themselves without it being forced on them.

Maybe states ought not be violating the Constitution, by illegally requiring citizens to obtain permits before they are allowed to exercise an explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is one difference. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was a right. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have the right to regulate guns without violating the 2nd amendment.

They were wrong, both times.

The Constitution explicitly affirms the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing this right. Period. The courts do not have the power, legitimately, to override the Constitution; and every time that they do so is an act of corruption and lawlessness.

And there is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that supports the perverts' agenda of compelling a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be treated and recognized as being any any way comparable to genuine marriage. The courts have no legitimate power to attribute such meaning to the Constitution that is nowhere stated or implied in the actual words thereof. Again, this was an act of corruption and lawlessness.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what you are seem to be saying is that there should be no state gun laws, that they should all be Federal?
or are you saying there should be no laws governing firearms at all?

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

Compare with the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, those that belong to the states, and those that belong to the people.

To whom does the right/power described in the Second Amendment belong? The Second Amendment is explicit on this point. It belongs to the people. That means that it does not belong to the states, nor does it belong to the federal government, and all levels of government are forbidden from infringing this right.

So then you are against even felons losing their right to own arms once they are out of prison?

And you support anyone being allowed to by any armament they want as along as they can afford it? Is that correct?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So then you are against even felons losing their right to own arms once they are out of prison?

Yes, actually, I am. Once a person has served his sentence, has “paid his debt to society”, I see no justifiable basis on which to continue to deny him any of his Constitutional rights.

Keep in mind that back when the Second Amendment was ratified, anyone who was convicted of a sufficient level of criminality to raise serious concerns about ever again allowing him full freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, whereafter any concerns about what rights he should or should not have became rather moot. If a criminal wants to have his guns buried with him in his grave, after he's been put to death, I'm perfectly OK with that.

The problem is not allowing any free, living person his rights; the problem is that we are too willing to allow the most dangerous of criminals to remain alive, and to ever again go free.

And you support anyone being allowed to by any armament they want as along as they can afford it? Is that correct?

There is some point where there ought to be a limit, and I'm fine with applying the strict scrutiny standard in determining where that limit is. But we're nowhere near it at this time. By a modern reading of the U.S. vs. Miller ruling, the arms that we most have a right to keep and bear would be those comparable to what we issue our soldiers; which would be a true assault rifle, capable of both semiautomatic operation and either fully-automatic or burst fire operation. Our corrupt government, at this time, absolutely refuses to allow us to obtain or possess such arms, and we have a whole class of firearms being fraudulently defined and targeted as “assault weapons” for merely bearing a superficial cosmetic resemblance to true military-grade weapons. We are, at this point, nowhere near being allowed such arms as we might rationally consider restricting or banning under a valid strict scrutiny examination of the Second Amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So then you are against even felons losing their right to own arms once they are out of prison?

Yes, actually, I am. Once a person has served his sentence, has “paid his debt to society”, I see no justifiable basis on which to continue to deny him any of his Constitutional rights.

Keep in mind that back when the Second Amendment was ratified,anyone who was convicted of a sufficient level of criminality to raise serious concerns about ever again allowing him full freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, whereafter any concerns about what rights he should or should not have became rather moot. If a criminal wants to have his guns buried with him in his grave, after he's been put to death, I'm perfectly OK with that.

The problem is not allowing any free, living person his rights; the problem is that we are too willing to allow the most dangerous of criminals to remain alive, and to ever again go free.

And you support anyone being allowed to by any armament they want as along as they can afford it? Is that correct?

There is some point where there ought to be a limit, and I'm fine with applying the strict scrutiny standard in determining where that limit is. But we're nowhere near it at this time. By a modern reading of the U.S. vs. Miller ruling,the arms that we most have a right to keep and bear would be those comparable to what we issue our soldiers; which would be a true assault rifle, capable of both semiautomatic operation and either fully-automatic or burst fire operation. Our corrupt government, at this time, absolutely refuses to allow us to obtain or possess such arms, and we have a whole class of firearms being fraudulently defined and targeted as “assault weapons” for merely bearing a superficial cosmetic resemblance to true military-grade weapons. We are, at this point, nowhere near being allowed such arms as we might rationally consider restricting or banning under a valid strict scrutiny examination of the Second Amendment.

Wait, so now you are for “some limit” on the 2nd amendment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wait, so now you are for “some limit” on the 2nd amendment?

It has to be recognized, that some times, one person's rights may be in conflict with another's, and that at that point, it is unavoidable that one person's rights must be abridged to protect another's.

I think an obvious extreme example might be allowing me to keep, in my apartment, a bomb capable of destroying my entire neighborhood. I think a clear case could be made that allowing me to possess such a device would create a sufficient danger to my neighbors, to override any right that I might claim under the Second Amendment to possess it.

But at this point, we are nowhere near the point where there is any argument being entertained that I ought to be allowed to possess such a device. Our corrupt governments refuses, at this point, to allow me arms to which I very clearly do have a right under the Second Amendment. It's not until some point, way past the point where the government ceases to engage in this outrageous and unjustifiable violation of my rights, that we will get to a point anywhere near where we can argue about where government does have the authority to set the limits.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The House voted to allow concealed carry across state lines. Now the bill moves to the Senate where 2nd Amendment hating democrats will hold their breaths until they turn blue.

House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate

So much for 'State's Rights'

Nonsense. States cannot violate the constitutional right of American citizens to arm themselves any more than the feds can.

We keep trying to explain that to you retards, but you just don't get it.

The right to arm yourself does not equate to hiding that arm on yourself.

I'm fine with nationwide open carry, then.

 

[KGB]

States rights are a part of the Constitution as well. That seems to elude you people. Maybe the states should work on reciprocity agreements among themselves without it being forced on them.

State's rights never trump the People's rights.

 

[KGB]

The House voted to allow concealed carry across state lines. Now the bill moves to the Senate where 2nd Amendment hating democrats will hold their breaths until they turn blue.

House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate

So much for 'State's Rights'

Yeah, we felt the same way in my state when gay marriage invaded. We had a vote on SSM years earlier and it was voted down, but the courts believed their ruling overrides our vote.

Interesting that you point that out.

In this case you have Congress telling the states what they must do.
In the case of the 'gay marriage'- and also gun rights- we had the Supreme Court telling states that they cannot have unconstitutional laws.

Not really. In this case you have Congress that wants to tell states what they can't do. No different than gay marriage.

There is one difference. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was a right. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have the right to regulate guns without violating the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court said it was an individual right.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The House voted to allow concealed carry across state lines. Now the bill moves to the Senate where 2nd Amendment hating democrats will hold their breaths until they turn blue.

House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate

So much for 'State's Rights'

Nonsense. States cannot violate the constitutional right of American citizens to arm themselves any more than the feds can.

We keep trying to explain that to you retards, but you just don't get it.

The right to arm yourself does not equate to hiding that arm on yourself.

I'm fine with nationwide open carry, then.

I am too


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

So much for 'State's Rights'

Yeah, we felt the same way in my state when gay marriage invaded. We had a vote on SSM years earlier and it was voted down, but the courts believed their ruling overrides our vote.

Interesting that you point that out.

In this case you have Congress telling the states what they must do.
In the case of the 'gay marriage'- and also gun rights- we had the Supreme Court telling states that they cannot have unconstitutional laws.

Not really. In this case you have Congress that wants to tell states what they can't do. No different than gay marriage.

There is one difference. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was a right. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have the right to regulate guns without violating the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court said it was an individual right.

I know. But in the very same ruling they said this:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[BluesLegend]

IF it passes and is signed into law by president Trump how many lawsuits will the left file? This one is headed to the SCOTUS.