House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[uscitizen]

Ohh Wow! a second ammendment day.
That means absolutely nothing.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

 

[Full-Auto]

First tell me why you're against state's rights.

Im not........................ Now why do you insist on a double standard?

Clearly - you are.

Your projections are noted along with your cowardliness.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

Wow - a consistent conservative.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines

I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

 

[Contumacious]

Don't come to New York.

You'll spend a year or two in Jail.

I , and my concealed S&W .357 snub nose magnum, will be in NYC the day after the Law becomes effective.

Umm .357 is sufficient there is no .357 non magnum is there?

i likes to rub it in.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the federal constitution just as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. and all those rights are recognized across state lines.

No state should be able to deny a citizen any right specified in the constitution.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines

I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

Everyone has a right to marry, its a natural right.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the federal constitution just as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. and all those rights are recognized across state lines.

No state should be able to deny a citizen any right specified in the constitution.

So what's a well REGULATED militia?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

Wow - a consistent conservative.

Something I will never understand why do gun gabbers think people have a safety net around them when they leave home? Where the people who were killed by Jered Longhner at home?

 

[Full-Auto]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the federal constitution just as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. and all those rights are recognized across state lines.

No state should be able to deny a citizen any right specified in the constitution.

So what's a well REGULATED militia?

A unit formed after the call to arms...............

 

[rightwinger]

To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines

I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

They have a right to get Married in New York

It only makes sense that if you can go to a 7-11 in Arizona and get a handgun permit and have it be valid in New York, you should be able to get married in New York and have it be valid in Arizona

 

[uscitizen]

One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines

I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

Everyone has a right to marry, its a natural right.

No one has a right period. People use to pick their childrens marriage partners out long before the children became adults.And yes some families still do that

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.

My understanding is that in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" doesn't necessarily mean a formal, organized militia - it can refer to all able bodied adults of a state that own firearms.

 

[Contumacious]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. .

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

Everyone has a right to marry, its a natural right.

No one has a right period.

Whatever you say. I guess I don't have a right to decide what I want to eat for breakfast, either.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines

I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

They have a right to get Married in New York

It only makes sense that if you can go to a 7-11 in Arizona and get a handgun permit and have it be valid in New York, you should be able to get married in New York and have it be valid in Arizona

Show me in the Constitution that the government can regulate marriage? Where in the bill of rights is it written that a person has a right to marry? Since we must use well regulated has it was meant by the founders "As to be expected in working order" gay marriage is not as to be expected or in working order.

 

[uscitizen]

One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.

My understanding is that in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" doesn't necessarily mean a formal, organized militia - it can refer to all able bodied adults of a state that own firearms.

Yes, but that is an intrepretation. Not the exact meaning as it was written.
so a strict constitutalionist should stick with the strict meaning I would think.

Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

I do not think the definition of militia has ever applied to individuals acting individually.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.

My understanding is that in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" doesn't necessarily mean a formal, organized militia - it can refer to all able bodied adults of a state that own firearms.

Yes, but that is an intrepretation. Not the exact meaning as it was written.
so a strict constitutalionist should stick with the strict meaning I would think.

Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I do not think the definition of militia has ever applied to individuals acting individually.

Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...