House vote on concealed weapons a victory...

[Warthogg]

Well we at least won in the house.


Wart



House vote on concealed weapons a victory for gun lobby

By Kathleen Hennessey, Washington Bureau

5:52 p.m. EST, November 16, 2011
The House gave gun rights advocates their first legislative win of the year in a move that some saw as a Republican reversal on protecting states' rights: approval of a federal regulation that would require states that issue concealed-weapons permits to honor such permits from other states.

The GOP-led chamber approved the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, intended to allow gun owners to travel more easily from state to state without worrying about whether their concealed carry permit was valid.

The measure passed, 272-154, with 43 Democrats crossing party lines to support it.

The legislation is not expected to be taken up by the Democratic-led Senate. A similar measure failed in the Senate in 2009, although it won support from 20 Democrats.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-house-guns-vote-20111116,0,7919633.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28 L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

[Mark Ducati]

Interesting... its almost as if a few dems are using this vote to their advantage for re-election next year???

[O.S.O.K.]

This will only be "good" until the new congress is elected right? So it will expire and need to be voted on again after the election... this will never get past dingy harry and even if it did, obongo would veto.

Please America, pay the hell attention and vote them all out. I would include all of the rinos in this as well...

[Warthogg]

Interesting... its almost as if a few dems are using this vote to their advantage for re-election next year???

Yup.....both Dims and Rethugs.

Wart


Wednesday's vote was a chance to win cheers from gun rights supporters, a key segment of the GOP base.

Similar base-pleasing measures have been making more frequent appearances on the House floor, as the year winds to a close and lawmakers turn to 2012 campaign mode.

[Schuetzenman]

Interesting... its almost as if a few dems are using this vote to their advantage for re-election next year???

Sure they are. But this law won't be law until the Senate passes it and O-shithead signs it. I'm thinking that even if the Senate should pull off a Miracle and pass it, O-shithead will veto it.

[Cypher]

Sure they are. But this law won't be law until the Senate passes it and O-shithead signs it. I'm thinking that even if the Senate should pull off a Miracle and pass it, O-shithead will veto it.

Maybe it's a test run to see if it will pass when a real president gets elected.

[El Jefe]

This will not make it out of Harry Reid's senate.

[El Laton Caliente]

I keep getting rumblings that this is not the bill we want. That it lets the Feds regulate CCW so that it "conforms" to standards and the Federal Gub'ment gets to set those standards.

[mriddick]

I keep getting rumblings that this is not the bill we want. That it lets the Feds regulate CCW so that it "conforms" to standards and the Federal Gub'ment gets to set those standards.That would be the state's righters complaining, of course to buy into that means that we'd be OK with the second not being a truly an individual right in the BOR either. Granted there are some risks with pushing back on the states when it comes to gun laws but in the end I think it's the only way we can go. Gun control started with the states disregarding it as a constitutionally protected right, 95% of all gun laws are at the state and local level, it's really time we either force the issue with the 2nd being a constitutional right or get use to the idea we surrendered it.

[Richard Simmons]

I keep getting rumblings that this is not the bill we want. That it lets the Feds regulate CCW so that it "conforms" to standards and the Federal Gub'ment gets to set those standards.

That was my one, main concern with a federal reciprocity bill. They could end up setting some outrageus standard for CCW that it would effectively hinder people from getting one. Some states require little or no training and have relatively low fees for the permits while others require more and cost more.

Years ago in San Diego county California, may be different today, IF you were able to get a permit you were required to quailfy on every firearm you were planning on carrying. In order to quailfy you had to go to the San Diego Police range down on Home Ave and the Rangemaster/Armorer had to first certify or inspect each firearm as being safe. He could basically deny your qualification if he didn't like your gun. It was entirely up too him.

After that you had to shoot a minimum score with each firearm and each firearm was noted on your permit. If for any reason you were caught carrying a firearm that wasn't listed you could be charged with illegal carry of a concealed weapon.

IIRC you had to requalify every two years with each firearm. If you had a bad day and didn't shoot the minimum, no CCW or maybe that particular firearm was removed from you carry options. Don't recall the cost for the permit or the qualification.

National reciprocity would be great but not if it ends up costing $500 a year and 40 hours of classroom and range time.

[Ronwicp]

Its funny how it would be a great victory if the government "gave" us a right to do something that they took away. Something which they had no right to take away in the first place.

By them "allowing" you to do this implies that they have the right to take it away.

[mriddick]

Its funny how it would be a great victory if the government "gave" us a right to do something that they took away. Something which they had no right to take away in the first place.

By them "allowing" you to do this implies that they have the right to take it away.Actually that's it though, it really doesn't allow anything other then forcing the states to recongize the 2nd as in the BOR and treat it as such. In this instance the states are the ones that have the laws that say "don't" on the books right now.

[Krupski]

Interesting... its almost as if a few dems are using this vote to their advantage for re-election next year???

Every one who voted "yes" did it for votes...

[L1A1Rocker]

I keep getting rumblings that this is not the bill we want. That it lets the Feds regulate CCW so that it "conforms" to standards and the Federal Gub'ment gets to set those standards.

I believe that is a false flag rumor being circulated. This bill does nothing of the sort. All it does is say that if a state has a CCW license program, it must honor the licenses issued by other states. It further states that a visting CCW must obey the laws regarding the use, and carry of firearms in what ever state they are visiting.

That's it. Nothing about min. standards, fees, or additional regs. It is only two pages long that is a good clean bill.

Now some dems did TRY and amend the bill with that kind of garbage but they were all defeted.

[L1A1Rocker]

From the NRA

Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require -- or even authorize -- any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

There is more: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189

Text of the Bill:

CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

112th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

H. R. 822CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

February 18, 2011CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

1
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

[El Laton Caliente]

Email:


Gun Owners of America
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill
Passes House
Troubling Amendment Added



The House passed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Wednesday evening by a vote of 272-154.


The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.


Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation:


It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.


Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”


Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.


“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.


“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”


Anti-gun Amendment Passes


One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:


“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”


Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.


The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.


You can click here to send you own Representative a message urging him or her to become a cosponsor of H.R. 2900.



Another one:


National Association for Gun Rights

ELC,

I was right to be concerned.

Not only was H.R. 822 -- the Trojan horse gun control bill -- passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).

The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.

One of my biggest concerns about this bill -- the lists of gun owners a permit process creates -- should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.

It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it -- all the in the name of “implementing H.R. 822.”

The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.

What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, they’ve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:


"It's remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states' concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.

Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights... I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."


Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.

Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.

For Freedom,


Dudley Brown
Executive Director

[L1A1Rocker]

I do see that an amendment passed requiring an audit. I'm not sure that I like it very much as it doesn't seem to need to be there.

With regard to Vermont, I don't see that they are in any different situation than they are already in. If they want to CCW outside their own state they have to get an out of state CCW. So what is the problem? I don't see that this law has any affect on constitutional carry at all. States that want/have it are free to do so.

As far as using the interestate commerce clause. I think that is the wrong part of the constitution to use for this. I think it is the "fall back" that most in congress go to. The more appropriate clause would the Article IV Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It is well within the Federal's power to ensure that a CCW issued in/by one state, is honored in another state.

[Ronwicp]

Issuing a license for a right is a form of infringement. all this is saying is

#1. its ok for them to do that.
#2 if they decided to do away with this rule/law they can. because the granted it in the first place.

[imanaknut]

According to the NRA, Harry Reid is a pro-gun democrat worthy of their backing, therefore we should expect Senator Reid to follow through and push for the passing of this through the senate....

Now that I have stopped laughing, we shouldn't need this law because we already have the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Therefore our federal government has the duty to make sure that no state infringes on our rights by denying our ability to have a firearm on our person..... wait, I am still laughing, now crying...

[Warthogg]

Issuing a license for a right is a form of infringement. all this is saying is

#1. its ok for them to do that.
#2 if they decided to do away with this rule/law they can. because the granted it in the first place.

As a California congressman said.....

PETE STARK (D): - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE



Wart

[1 Patriot-of-many]

According to the NRA, Harry Reid is a pro-gun democrat worthy of their backing, therefore we should expect Senator Reid to follow through and push for the passing of this through the senate....

Now that I have stopped laughing, we shouldn't need this law because we already have the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Therefore our federal government has the duty to make sure that no state infringes on our rights by denying our ability to have a firearm on our person..... wait, I am still laughing, now crying...

THAT sums it up for me.

[Cypher]

As much as I hate to say it we really don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Just have a out of state CCW and defend your wife and children from a vicious criminal in down town chicago with a firearm and see how far the constitution will get you. Sad, and it infuriates me but it's happened more than once and people have been thrown in jail for no reason according to the constitution.

You may say states have the right to make their own laws and regulate out the 2A if they choose then if that's the case as far as preventing you from practicing your rights affirmed by the constitution you might as well through the constitution away because it doesn't make any difference as far as some states are concerned.

My point....the constitution should be abided by regardless of what the local state or federal government thinks, anything less is a loss of our rights in the laws eyes.

[Warthogg]

You may say states have the right to make their own laws and regulate out the 2A if they choose then if that's the case as far as preventing you from practicing your rights affirmed by the constitution you might as well through the constitution away because it doesn't make any difference as far as some states are concerned.

My point....the constitution should be abided by regardless of what the local state or federal government thinks, anything less is a loss of our rights in the laws eyes.

Mr. Cain disagrees with you. Mr. Cain believes states AND MUNICIPALITIES have the right decide if you can own firearms. Be sort of like getting a Form 4 approved for a fully automatic weapon....only if the senior law enforcement official in your area will approve.


Wart

[insider]

I keep getting rumblings that this is not the bill we want. That it lets the Feds regulate CCW so that it "conforms" to standards and the Federal Gub'ment gets to set those standards.

When the Feds get involved with something, you know they'll find some way to foul it up.

[mriddick]

Well when it comes to gun control the states are the ones who fouled it up first since 1806. At some point we need to remind the states the 2nd is an individual right they have no right to infringe upon. Granted there's issues with the fed but if we are going to do this the first thing that needs done is to take back what we've lost from the states.

[Richard Simmons]

Mr. Cain disagrees with you. Mr. Cain believes states AND MUNICIPALITIES have the right decide if you can own firearms. Be sort of like getting a Form 4 approved for a fully automatic weapon....only if the senior law enforcement official in your area will approve.


Wart

And unlike federal laws state an local laws can be changed much faster and easier. That's why we have elections for sheriff, mayor, city council. etc. If we have any laws my preference is at the state level and lower. Easier for the people to control.

Also Cain said any regulation of firearms should up to the states which is pretty much where most regulation of things should take place.

[Richard Simmons]

Well when it comes to gun control the states are the ones who fouled it up first since 1806. At some point we need to remind the states the 2nd is an individual right they have no right to infringe upon. Granted there's issues with the fed but if we are going to do this the first thing that needs done is to take back what we've lost from the states.

The reality is that states like California don't feel like they've lost any rights. The majority of the voters want firearms restrictions or they would have voted for progun candidates and laws. That's the way it should be. Don't like it, change it or move. With federal laws you're stuck with no place to move to and a slower road to get the laws changed

[mriddick]

Also Cain said any regulation of firearms should up to the states which is pretty much where most regulation of things should take place.

Not my BOR freedoms, they shouldn't.

Gun control is a hold over from the state's rights movement, it's been in law so long and accepted by so many it now has a very strong legal precedent going for it. Historically it's roots are in denying slaves and freed blacks the right to own firearms as well as a hedge against further unwanted federal laws. It's going to take a while to get the states to concede the 2nd back to the individual as well as getting it through most state righter's mind that the 10th does not rule over individual rights in the BOR. I've had alot of discussion with very progun people over this issue lately, I'd say at this time there's probably more who consider themselves progun and for states being able to infringe upon the 2nd in this way then not. It's going to take some time for this to change if it ever does (in the south it's going to be specially very tough to break this mindset).


The reality is that states like California don't feel like they've lost any rights. The majority of the voters want firearms restrictions or they would have voted for progun candidates and laws. That's the way it should be. Don't like it, change it or move. With federal laws you're stuck with no place to move to and a slower road to get the laws changed
If California voted themselves a state religion would that be OK? What if the majority voted everyone must be a democrat? What if California said conservatives could visit the state but they must leave their conservative views at home? Sorry it doesn't hold water for the rest of the BOR and it shouldn't hold up against the 2nd either.

[Richard Simmons]

Not my BOR freedoms, they shouldn't.

Gun control is a hold over from the state's rights movement, it's been in law so long and accepted by so many it now has a very strong legal precedent going for it. Historically it's roots are in denying slaves and freed blacks the right to own firearms as well as a hedge against further unwanted federal laws. It's going to take a while to get the states to concede the 2nd back to the individual as well as getting it through most state righter's mind that the 10th does not rule over individual rights in the BOR. I've had alot of discussion with very progun people over this issue lately, I'd say at this time there's probably more who consider themselves progun and for states being able to infringe upon the 2nd in this way then not. It's going to take some time for this to change if it ever does (in the south it's going to be specially very tough to break this mindset).


If California voted themselves a state religion would that be OK? What if the majority voted everyone must be a democrat? What if California said conservatives could visit the state but they must leave their conservative views at home? Sorry it doesn't hold water for the rest of the BOR and it shouldn't hold up against the 2nd either.

First off not all firearms regulations are infringments on the BOR. The state, city or county passing a law that makes it illegal to shoot a firearm inside city limits seems like a reasonable law. Is that infringing on the BOR? Not allowing firearms in the jail, is thatan infringement on the BOR?

Laws, good or bad should be at the state level, not the federal. That's all I'm saying. Even if a state passes a law that infringes on the BOR the citizens of that state can correct that law if they choose to. Evidently the majority of California residents, and residents of some other states either don't care or want the laws the way they are. I say let them live in the bed they made or change it.

[mriddick]

First off not all firearms regulations are infringments on the BOR. The state, city or county passing a law that makes it illegal to shoot a firearm inside city limits seems like a reasonable law. Is that infringing on the BOR? Not allowing firearms in the jail, is thatan infringement on the BOR?

Laws, good or bad should be at the state level, not the federal. That's all I'm saying. Even if a state passes a law that infringes on the BOR the citizens of that state can correct that law if they choose to. Evidently the majority of California residents, and residents of some other states either don't care or want the laws the way they are. I say let them live in the bed they made or change it.

I understand, trust me few have spoken against abuses of the fed on states as much as I have. However I think there needs to be a balance that needs addressed. It pretty much comes down to at that point you are addressing the yelling fire in a movie house argument. Or at what point is free speech disallowed based on concerns with how it interacts with the other amendments in the BOR. Regardless I would bet not many would feel it should be left up solely to a state to say how far our 1st amendment rights can go and truthfully we shouldn't be so willing to surrender that on the 2nd either.

As an example IMO firearms in jail/prison would be not legal since under the 5th and due process the person has lost their rights to have them. Shooting in the city limits might fall under the 4th (privacy and being able to reasonably use your property someone might be shooting into) and it could be perfectly legal for a city to regulate that. Granted we must take into consideration how the amendments interact with each other to set law but no amendment should able to rule out another so completely without an overwhelming compelling reason regardless of the popular vote.

Rather then say it's up to others to leave I would counter if the majority wants to change/disregard the Constitution as it now stands they need to do so legally under article 5.

[Warthogg]

And unlike federal laws state an local laws can be changed much faster and easier. That's why we have elections for sheriff, mayor, city council. etc. If we have any laws my preference is at the state level and lower. Easier for the people to control.

Also Cain said any regulation of firearms should up to the states which is pretty much where most regulation of things should take place.

Mr Cain said regulation of firearms should be left to states AND MUNICIPALITIES.


Wart

[Richard Simmons]

Mr Cain said regulation of firearms should be left to states AND MUNICIPALITIES.


Wart

Correct. What he didin't say is that they should have the right to "decide if you can own firearms" as you stated. There are many forms of "firearms regulation" that don't preclude ownership and as unwanted as even those regulations might be I would much rather tackle them at the state and municipal level then the federal.

[Richard Simmons]

I understand, trust me few have spoken against abuses of the fed on states as much as I have. However I think there needs to be a balance that needs addressed. It pretty much comes down to at that point you are addressing the yelling fire in a movie house argument. Or at what point is free speech disallowed based on concerns with how it interacts with the other amendments in the BOR. Regardless I would bet not many would feel it should be left up solely to a state to say how far our 1st amendment rights can go and truthfully we shouldn't be so willing to surrender that on the 2nd either.

As an example IMO firearms in jail/prison would be not legal since under the 5th and due process the person has lost their rights to have them. Shooting in the city limits might fall under the 4th (privacy and being able to reasonably use your property someone might be shooting into) and it could be perfectly legal for a city to regulate that. Granted we must take into consideration how the amendments interact with each other to set law but no amendment should able to rule out another so completely without an overwhelming compelling reason regardless of the popular vote.

Rather then say it's up to others to leave I would counter if the majority wants to change/disregard the Constitution as it now stands they need to do so legally under article 5.

My jail comment was directed at not allowing visitors to bring firearms into the jail and not towards inmates having firearms. To me that seems a reasonable "regulation".

[Warthogg]

Correct. What he didin't say is that they should have the right to "decide if you can own firearms" as you stated. There are many forms of "firearms regulation" that don't preclude ownership and as unwanted as even those regulations might be I would much rather tackle them at the state and municipal level then the federal.

To 'regulate' is to decide.

Control or maintain
Control or supervise

Synonyms:
adjust - control - arrange - settle - order - regularize

That a supposedly pro 2nd Amendment crowd such as Gunsnet would support this phuck Cain I cannot understand. Cain is a flat out liar, worked for the Fed and managed to offend a couple of women enough that they were paid off.

This guy will never get my vote. Of course he will never get the nomination any way.


Wart