The 2nd Amendment Wins Again

[ChrisL]

New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.

Unlike you that is just plain ugly.

Freedom and the Constitution rule. LLL's quake in the wake of Great American's protecting themselves.

How about the freedom to not be gunned down by some crazy criminal who got a gun out of a vending machine ?

People who have a RECORD tend to get their guns illegally. If you don't have a record, then you are not a criminal. So, your post was pretty pointless. Good job, Timay.

 

[danielpalos]

More and more States are recognizing their citizens right to self defense, this time NH. With any luck the trend will continue.

From the link:

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has signed legislation removing the licensing requirement for carrying concealed firearms. A representative from the National Rifle Association says that makes New Hampshire the 12th state that doesn’t require a license or permit.

Now anyone who isn’t prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun can carry it concealed without a license. The previous law gave police chiefs and local officials the discretion to decide if someone was ‘‘suitable’’ to carry a gun concealed.

N.H. residents no longer need a license to carry concealed loaded guns - The Boston Globe

Regressives are now free to have another hissy fit.

No longer a problem for the Union, but New Hampshire.

natural rights are still subject to the police power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.

Unlike you that is just plain ugly.

Freedom and the Constitution rule. LLL's quake in the wake of Great American's protecting themselves.

How about the freedom to not be gunned down by some crazy criminal who got a gun out of a vending machine ?

you can't read can you

Only those legally eligible to own a gun can carry concealed without a permit

the fact that they were eligible to buy a gun is enough as it should be

 

[OKTexas]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

 

[vlad_hombre]

More and more States are recognizing their citizens right to self defense, this time NH. With any luck the trend will continue.

From the link:

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has signed legislation removing the licensing requirement for carrying concealed firearms. A representative from the National Rifle Association says that makes New Hampshire the 12th state that doesn’t require a license or permit.

Now anyone who isn’t prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun can carry it concealed without a license. The previous law gave police chiefs and local officials the discretion to decide if someone was ‘‘suitable’’ to carry a gun concealed.

N.H. residents no longer need a license to carry concealed loaded guns - The Boston Globe

Regressives are now free to have another hissy fit.

The NRA wins again at the expense of American lives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

More and more States are recognizing their citizens right to self defense, this time NH. With any luck the trend will continue.

From the link:

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has signed legislation removing the licensing requirement for carrying concealed firearms. A representative from the National Rifle Association says that makes New Hampshire the 12th state that doesn’t require a license or permit.

Now anyone who isn’t prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun can carry it concealed without a license. The previous law gave police chiefs and local officials the discretion to decide if someone was ‘‘suitable’’ to carry a gun concealed.

N.H. residents no longer need a license to carry concealed loaded guns - The Boston Globe

Regressives are now free to have another hissy fit.

The NRA wins again at the expense of American lives.

allowing people legally eligible to buy guns to carry concealed is not to threat to American lives

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

While Pupps personally supports such a law, if Pupps were a justice - Pupps would vote to strike it down. The Fed government doesn't have that right. It belongs to the states on a sovereign basis.

That would be another case of the fed usurping states rights. The Constitution is the law of the land and it clearly states that the federal government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms and that such authority clearly resides with the sovereign states. As such, it resides with them on an individual basis.

Consequently, imposition of a federal law negating an individual sovereign state's rights in that area is unconstitutional. This is how a Constitutionalist SCOTUS judge would rule.

 

[Auld Phart]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

While Pupps personally supports such a law, if Pupps were a justice - Pupps would vote to strike it down. The Fed government doesn't have that right. It belongs to the states on a sovereign basis.

That would be another case of the fed usurping states rights. The Constitution is the law of the land and it clearly states that the federal government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms and that such authority clearly resides with the sovereign states. As such, it resides with them on an individual basis.

Consequently, imposition of a federal law negating an individual sovereign state rights in that area is unconstitutional. This is how a Constitutionalist SCOTUS judge would rule.

How many states is your divers license good in?

What is the difference?

 

[Marion Morrison]

^I hate to say it but I have to agree with that.

 

[yiostheoy]

More and more States are recognizing their citizens right to self defense, this time NH. With any luck the trend will continue.

From the link:

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has signed legislation removing the licensing requirement for carrying concealed firearms. A representative from the National Rifle Association says that makes New Hampshire the 12th state that doesn’t require a license or permit.

Now anyone who isn’t prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun can carry it concealed without a license. The previous law gave police chiefs and local officials the discretion to decide if someone was ‘‘suitable’’ to carry a gun concealed.

N.H. residents no longer need a license to carry concealed loaded guns - The Boston Globe

Regressives are now free to have another hissy fit.

I would be very surprised if the ultra Left states like California and New York ever do this too.

Sure I would like to see it. But I doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime.

 

[yiostheoy]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

Don't forget that Heller as written by Scalia is very States-Rights supportive, and therefore it would all depend on the composition of the SCOTUS when Federal legislation like this is brought before the High Court, as Calif. and NYS are most likely to do if it passes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

While Pupps personally supports such a law, if Pupps were a justice - Pupps would vote to strike it down. The Fed government doesn't have that right. It belongs to the states on a sovereign basis.

That would be another case of the fed usurping states rights. The Constitution is the law of the land and it clearly states that the federal government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms and that such authority clearly resides with the sovereign states. As such, it resides with them on an individual basis.

Consequently, imposition of a federal law negating an individual sovereign state's rights in that area is unconstitutional. This is how a Constitutionalist SCOTUS judge would rule.

Based on the 14th, the states are likewise constrained from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

Don't forget that Heller as written by Scalia is very States-Rights supportive, and therefore it would all depend on the composition of the SCOTUS when Federal legislation like this is brought before the High Court, as Calif. and NYS are most likely to do if it passes.

Even if the court is stacked with conservative justices, they still have to consider the Constitutionality.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'm surprised that wasn't already the law in New Hampshire.

I've heard the Moose can be very aggressive.

There are several animals that a concealed firearm won't kill.

So don't kid yourself about that.

Elephants, buffalo, bears, tigers, lions, moose -- these each require really heavy firepower not just some pocket gun.

 

[yiostheoy]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

Don't forget that Heller as written by Scalia is very States-Rights supportive, and therefore it would all depend on the composition of the SCOTUS when Federal legislation like this is brought before the High Court, as Calif. and NYS are most likely to do if it passes.

Even if the court is stacked with conservative justices, they still have to consider the Constitutionality.

Correct, for strict-constructionist justices it will boil down to a duel between the 2nd Amendment and the 10th -- States' Rights.

 

[yiostheoy]

New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.

Unlike you that is just plain ugly.

Freedom and the Constitution rule. LLL's quake in the wake of Great American's protecting themselves.

How about the freedom to not be gunned down by some crazy criminal who got a gun out of a vending machine ?

If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

You need to memorize this.

Then you need to think about it more than you have.

 

[yiostheoy]

New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.

You've got it confused with Mass.

There are plenty of people in MA who support 2nd amendment rights. A lot of us in the suburbs are not liberals. And while some may take a liberal slant on some issues, that doesn't mean that they are anti 2nd amendment either.

California has the same bipolar problem as Massachusetts as well.

There are a lot of far Left in both and they run things.

And there are a few moderates and far Rights who are not happy with the far Left state governments but can't do anything about it.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

You know, Executive Orders are supposed to be only for carrying out laws already passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez).

That would include the U.S. Constitution, which was passed and ratified long ago.

Since Donald Trump is interested in writing Executive Orders to do what the law already says, is there any reason he can't simply issue an EO declaring all so-called "gun control" laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are now null and void?

Federal, state and local.

No.

Because an executive order can ONLY instruct the executive branch on how to apply or enforce laws.

He could order the FBI not to prosecute people for simple possession of a firearm, but can't do anything about California shitting all over the Constitution with their laws. Only the court can act on that. Which is WHY it was so important to elect Trump, so that he could appoint honest men like Judge Gorsuch.

Technically, the Constitution lays out the powers of the federal government. One of which is it's inability to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Therefore, the feds can't prohibit the right to bear arms.

It also states that all powers reside with the states unless specifically granted to the feds via the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has basically ignored this on multiple occasions. Abortion and marriage being 2 high profile cases.

DJT could order federal enforcement agencies to ignore federal gun restriction statutes and rules with no consequence. Does Congress have the right to strike down all gun control laws has never been tested. Typical SCOTUS rulings hold that fed law trumps state law.

That is why a Constitutionalist SCOTUS is so important. Washington is filled with egos and power hungry individuals. Without the check of an honestly objective court, the rights of all Americans are in peril.

That's why you'll see a national reciprocity law that requires States to recognize other State gun licenses coming very soon. Congress has held it till they had a president that would sign it.

While Pupps personally supports such a law, if Pupps were a justice - Pupps would vote to strike it down. The Fed government doesn't have that right. It belongs to the states on a sovereign basis.

That would be another case of the fed usurping states rights. The Constitution is the law of the land and it clearly states that the federal government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms and that such authority clearly resides with the sovereign states. As such, it resides with them on an individual basis.

Consequently, imposition of a federal law negating an individual sovereign state rights in that area is unconstitutional. This is how a Constitutionalist SCOTUS judge would rule.

How many states is your divers license good in?

What is the difference?

Driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. As such, competence to drive definition is solely a states right issue. Under the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce the fed has exercised its authority to require reciprocity between the states. That is the legal doctrine under which it was done.

Such authority does not exist for a federal entity to exercise such authority regarding gun ownership or carrying of such arms. It is a right upon which the federal government is specifically constitutionally prohibited to engage in. It is a sovereign states right to dictate such laws within it's borders without federal influence or interference.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.

Unlike you that is just plain ugly.

Freedom and the Constitution rule. LLL's quake in the wake of Great American's protecting themselves.

How about the freedom to not be gunned down by some crazy criminal who got a gun out of a vending machine ?

All of my AK's and m82a1's were purchased from vending machines.

Right next to the beer machines.

The perfect combination.

 

[2aguy]

New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.

Unlike you that is just plain ugly.

Freedom and the Constitution rule. LLL's quake in the wake of Great American's protecting themselves.

How about the freedom to not be gunned down by some crazy criminal who got a gun out of a vending machine ?

That is why we have the 2nd amendment....and why we arm police...the only way to stop a democrat with a gun who is shooting people is to shoot him first...