House passes concealed carry bill, tosses state rights and const. out window.

[Seawytch]

Is marriage in the Constitution? No, I didnt think so either.
Your "marriage license" is a sham, the product of politicians bending over to the gay lobby. Fortunately my home state bars such perversion.

You brought up the FF&C clause dipshit.

Fortunately, the law of your state will be found unconstitutional when marriage equality reaches the SCOTUS.

I always heard gays had vivid imaginations. There is nothing unconstitutional about TN's state constitution.

Bigots thought the same thing about their anti-miscegenation laws. They were wrong too.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That's part of their focus on "job creation". Jobs jobs jobs.

Which party wasted a year fighting for obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?

Which party wasted a year fighting against obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?


Stop being a blind partisan and place the blame where it belongs.

 

[Seawytch]

That's part of their focus on "job creation". Jobs jobs jobs.

Which party wasted a year fighting for obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?

Which party wasted a year fighting against obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?


Stop being a blind partisan and place the blame where it belongs.

The irony of you calling someone else a "partisan hack" while using the pejorative "Obamacare" to describe the Affordable Care Act shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Congress had already passed the Recovery Act when they started debated health care reform (something Americans had polled as wanting).

Thanks to the Recovery Act, jobs numbers went the opposite direction they had been going when President Obama took office. To deny that would make someone a "partisan hack".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's part of their focus on "job creation". Jobs jobs jobs.

Which party wasted a year fighting for obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?

Which party wasted a year fighting against obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?


Stop being a blind partisan and place the blame where it belongs.

The irony of you calling someone else a "partisan hack" while using the pejorative "Obamacare" to describe the Affordable Care Act shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Congress had already passed the Recovery Act when they started debated health care reform (something Americans had polled as wanting).

Thanks to the Recovery Act, jobs numbers went the opposite direction they had been going when President Obama took office. To deny that would make someone a "partisan hack".

Well which party is accusing the other for something they should have taken are of 2 years ago?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That's part of their focus on "job creation". Jobs jobs jobs.

Which party wasted a year fighting for obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?

Which party wasted a year fighting against obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?


Stop being a blind partisan and place the blame where it belongs.

The irony of you calling someone else a "partisan hack" while using the pejorative "Obamacare" to describe the Affordable Care Act shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Congress had already passed the Recovery Act when they started debated health care reform (something Americans had polled as wanting).

Thanks to the Recovery Act, jobs numbers went the opposite direction they had been going when President Obama took office. To deny that would make someone a "partisan hack".

I'm blaming both sides and you are calling me the partisan hack

Get a grip man.

 

[Intense]

House votes to expand concealed gun law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.

I don't know. NYC has been abusing Second Amendment Rights since before I was born.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's part of their focus on "job creation". Jobs jobs jobs.

Which party wasted a year fighting for obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?

Which party wasted a year fighting against obamacare while our economy was tanking and bleeding jobs still?


Stop being a blind partisan and place the blame where it belongs.

The irony of you calling someone else a "partisan hack" while using the pejorative "Obamacare" to describe the Affordable Care Act shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Congress had already passed the Recovery Act when they started debated health care reform (something Americans had polled as wanting).

Thanks to the Recovery Act, jobs numbers went the opposite direction they had been going when President Obama took office. To deny that would make someone a "partisan hack".

Thankls to the Recovery Act we have had the slowest recovery on record, with record deficits and a credit downgrade to show for it. Does anyone honestly believe 9% unemployment is "recovery"??
Obamacare continued the recession as employers scrambled to figure out how much employees were actually going to cost, an impossible task given the law's complexity.
But all of that is irrelevant to this thread, which deals with expanding the right of law abiding citizens to carry their handguns. I seem to remember in some distant past when liberals applauded expanding civil rights.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Its a license that your state gives you and a course taken before a concealed carry is issued so remember these are law abiding citizens that have been schooled. Law abiding assuming they didnt lie on the forms etc. So they are not murderers or thieves and have the right to own and carry and may just live on a border. If they live on a border they arent allowed to cross the street?

The operative issue there is that the STATE issues the permit based on its own requirements. Not all states require the same thing. Your state might have lesser requirements than mine. But this bill would require my state to be satisfied with the lesser requirements of your state.

I am in no way questioning the rights of people to bear arms for legal purposes, or objecting to states allowing concealed carry within whatever requirements they so wish. My objections are that this law impedes upon state rights, requiring one state to accept whatever standards other states settle for.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Its a license that your state gives you and a course taken before a concealed carry is issued so remember these are law abiding citizens that have been schooled. Law abiding assuming they didnt lie on the forms etc. So they are not murderers or thieves and have the right to own and carry and may just live on a border. If they live on a border they arent allowed to cross the street?

The operative issue there is that the STATE issues the permit based on its own requirements. Not all states require the same thing. Your state might have lesser requirements than mine. But this bill would require my state to be satisfied with the lesser requirements of your state.

I am in no way questioning the rights of people to bear arms for legal purposes, or objecting to states allowing concealed carry within whatever requirements they so wish. My objections are that this law impedes upon state rights, requiring one state to accept whatever standards other states settle for.

Yes but what about the constitutional right to bear arms......does that mean if I have the right to carry concealed but go into a state that doesn't allow its ok for me to carry it openly?

If it isn't then the states are superceeding a right that is given in the constitution, and under the 10th ammendment you could argue this is unconstitutional as this right is expressly given to all americans in the constitution.

I'm eagarly awaiting your opinion and feedback.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yes but what about the constitutional right to bear arms......does that mean if I have the right to carry concealed but go into a state that doesn't allow its ok for me to carry it openly?

We're specifically talking about CONCEALED carry. Concealed carry is not protected by the constitution, so states are allowed to regulate it at their discretion.

If it isn't then the states are superceeding a right that is given in the constitution, and under the 10th ammendment you could argue this is unconstitutional as this right is expressly given to all americans in the constitution.

No, I'm not saying anything about open carry. I'm talking about this bill in Congress where the federal government would force my state (which allows concealed carry with a permit, after meeting certain qualifications) to allow people to carry concealed based on YOUR STATE's permit, even though your state might not have as high of standards and requirements as my state. If you want to carry a concealed weapon in your state, up to the border, and switch to open carry as you come into this state, then I'm perfectly fine with that. You're not breaking the laws of my state and my state is not being forced to accept the requirements of your state regardless of whether they meet our standards. I'm not sure if I've hit the nail you're looking for. But then again, like I said, this isn't about open carry, it's strictly about concealed carry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes but what about the constitutional right to bear arms......does that mean if I have the right to carry concealed but go into a state that doesn't allow its ok for me to carry it openly?

We're specifically talking about CONCEALED carry. Concealed carry is not protected by the constitution, so states are allowed to regulate it at their discretion.

If it isn't then the states are superceeding a right that is given in the constitution, and under the 10th ammendment you could argue this is unconstitutional as this right is expressly given to all americans in the constitution.

No, I'm not saying anything about open carry. I'm talking about this bill in Congress where the federal government would force my state (which allows concealed carry with a permit, after meeting certain qualifications) to allow people to carry concealed based on YOUR STATE's permit, even though your state might not have as high of standards and requirements as my state. If you want to carry a concealed weapon in your state, up to the border, and switch to open carry as you come into this state, then I'm perfectly fine with that. You're not breaking the laws of my state and my state is not being forced to accept the requirements of your state regardless of whether they meet our standards. I'm not sure if I've hit the nail you're looking for. But then again, like I said, this isn't about open carry, it's strictly about concealed carry.

When can you show us where the second amendment dictates how a person carries a firearm?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't know but I think the author of this shit thread failed to mention that a Democrat was one of two sponsors of H.R. 822

Heath Shuler D-N.C

I will have to keep this in mind when it's his turn to be re-elected to his seat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As I understand it, this includes marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc, but has not till now been considered for CCW licenses.

Full faith and credit means that each state has to recognize that things have been recorded, things have happened, etc., based on the records of all other states. Full faith and credit does NOT mean that that my state has to grant you permissions here that your state grants you there.

Marriage certificates are such documents, stating the persons were married, and drivers licenses are certifications of qualification to drive on the roads.

There is no reason on Gods Green Earth to not also recognise the certification process for CCW licenses of other states, except gun grabbing loons that cant stand the thought of someone defending themselves against some poor misunderstood thug.

Imagine for a moment....let's say the state of Texas (just picking one, no particular reason) decided to reduce its drinking age to 18 and make buying and consumer alcohol by 18-21 year olds subject to licensing. Would anyone think that the FFC clause would require Alabama to allow 18 year old Texans to drink in Alabama? Or course not.

Talk about apples and oranges. That has to be one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen in my life.

No one certifies anyone to drink alcohol, lol.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where did the author of this shit thread go? Why was he being so deceptive and not revealing that this bill was sponsored by a democrat?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where did the author of this shit thread go? Why was he being so deceptive and not revealing that this bill was sponsored by a democrat?

Why would that make any difference?

You dont think that there are some pro-gun rights Dems in Congress?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes but what about the constitutional right to bear arms......does that mean if I have the right to carry concealed but go into a state that doesn't allow its ok for me to carry it openly?

We're specifically talking about CONCEALED carry. Concealed carry is not protected by the constitution, so states are allowed to regulate it at their discretion.

If it isn't then the states are superceeding a right that is given in the constitution, and under the 10th ammendment you could argue this is unconstitutional as this right is expressly given to all americans in the constitution.

No, I'm not saying anything about open carry. I'm talking about this bill in Congress where the federal government would force my state (which allows concealed carry with a permit, after meeting certain qualifications) to allow people to carry concealed based on YOUR STATE's permit, even though your state might not have as high of standards and requirements as my state. If you want to carry a concealed weapon in your state, up to the border, and switch to open carry as you come into this state, then I'm perfectly fine with that. You're not breaking the laws of my state and my state is not being forced to accept the requirements of your state regardless of whether they meet our standards. I'm not sure if I've hit the nail you're looking for. But then again, like I said, this isn't about open carry, it's strictly about concealed carry.

When can you show us where the second amendment dictates how a person carries a firearm?

Of course the Second Amendment doesnt do that, but the reigning paradigm of Constitutional jurists thinks the states have the right to regulate such things in a way that is almost perpendicular to the spirit behind the Second Amendment.

I am OK with CCW, but would much prefer to carry the way God meant us to...honestly in the open for all the world to see.

Libtards are OK with gays having an orgy on public park walks but cant bear the sight of a law abiding citzen toting a six shooter.

 

[Navy1960]

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Hamilton Federalist 28

When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

It seems that the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on the subject in my humble opinion that through a militia which in the case of the actual framers of the constitution meant the "people" which was well "regulated" that the right to actually "Bear"arms shall not be infringed upon. So while the states are within their rights to regulate firearms those rights shall not extend beyond the right to actually keep a firearm. The framers of the constitution believed that the right to bear arms lay in the long established natural rights established under English Law and the right to self defense. However they were smart enough to realize that through the term " well regualted " that arms could be regulated. In my humble opinion the congress did not throw the constitution out the window, nor did they trample on states rights, they simple reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment through its power to regulate as well as affirm the 2nd Amendment, and I might point out the following.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

While I do find congress spending it's time on these sorts of bills at this moment somewhat troubling given the MANY MANY other problems this nation faces, it does appear they were well witnin their rights to do so, and on a realistic basis this bill will most likely die if not in the Senate then by Veto.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Its a license that your state gives you and a course taken before a concealed carry is issued so remember these are law abiding citizens that have been schooled. Law abiding assuming they didnt lie on the forms etc. So they are not murderers or thieves and have the right to own and carry and may just live on a border. If they live on a border they arent allowed to cross the street?

The operative issue there is that the STATE issues the permit based on its own requirements. Not all states require the same thing. Your state might have lesser requirements than mine. But this bill would require my state to be satisfied with the lesser requirements of your state.

Just like they do with marriage requirements or drivers license requirements.

So far you have not pointed to any substantial differences between the marriage license, drivers license or CC license.

I am in no way questioning the rights of people to bear arms for legal purposes, or objecting to states allowing concealed carry within whatever requirements they so wish. My objections are that this law impedes upon state rights, requiring one state to accept whatever standards other states settle for.

As with any other licensing.

New York should not be able to revoke my certified license to CCW just because the corrput Mob-tied political whores there want to keep things safe for their shylocks and leg-breakers.

 

[Intense]

Its a license that your state gives you and a course taken before a concealed carry is issued so remember these are law abiding citizens that have been schooled. Law abiding assuming they didnt lie on the forms etc. So they are not murderers or thieves and have the right to own and carry and may just live on a border. If they live on a border they arent allowed to cross the street?

The operative issue there is that the STATE issues the permit based on its own requirements. Not all states require the same thing. Your state might have lesser requirements than mine. But this bill would require my state to be satisfied with the lesser requirements of your state.

Just like they do with marriage requirements or drivers license requirements.

So far you have not pointed to any substantial differences between the marriage license, drivers license or CC license.

I am in no way questioning the rights of people to bear arms for legal purposes, or objecting to states allowing concealed carry within whatever requirements they so wish. My objections are that this law impedes upon state rights, requiring one state to accept whatever standards other states settle for.

As with any other licensing.

New York should not be able to revoke my certified license to CCW just because the corrput Mob-tied political whores there want to keep things safe for their shylocks and leg-breakers.

The sad thing about NYC, is that you could be attacked by a gang, defend yourself with a garbage can lid, and be charged. It's not just guns, it's knives, tools, anything handy that you turn into a weapon, that can arbitrarily used against you in a Court of Law, partly determined by any harm that you do, even in Self Defense. My problem with the City or State, is when it forgets it is not God, it is not on scene at the time, and it seems to think that one needs to raise one's hand, wait until called on, and then ask permission to defend ones own life, like you are awaiting permission to go to the Bathroom or the Nurses Office. It is total Bullshit, and the perspective is very much a threat. The Federal Government needs to clarify and support the Right of Self Defense and Property.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

While I do find congress spending it's time on these sorts of bills at this moment somewhat troubling given the MANY MANY other problems this nation faces, it does appear they were well witnin their rights to do so, and on a realistic basis this bill will most likely die if not in the Senate then by Veto.

Correct and wall said; consequently:

The operative issue there is that the STATE issues the permit based on its own requirements. Not all states require the same thing. Your state might have lesser requirements than mine. But this bill would require my state to be satisfied with the lesser requirements of your state.

I am in no way questioning the rights of people to bear arms for legal purposes, or objecting to states allowing concealed carry within whatever requirements they so wish. My objections are that this law impedes upon state rights, requiring one state to accept whatever standards other states settle for.

Yes, your state would be compelled to abide the ‘lesser’ standard, as your state has no ‘right’ to reject or ignore a Federal statute, per the Supremacy Clause and the Court’s subsequent rulings.