The 2nd Amendment Wins Again

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Sep 13, 2012
65,814
20,788
2,290
Near Magnolia, TX
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.
 
mle170223cd20170223021531.jpg
 
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.
New Hampshire is obeying the 2nd amendment???

Never thought I'd see the day.

38 to go.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

What? ALL of the recent fire arm cases have involved STATE laws. The reason why the fed court have struck down MOST restrictions is on the basis that the 14th amend incorporated the second amend to apply to the states.
 
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.

What? ALL of the recent fire arm cases have involved STATE laws. The reason why the fed court have struck down MOST restrictions is on the basis that the 14th amend incorporated the second amend to apply to the states.
Link?
 

Forum List

Back
Top