Support for National Reciprocity Shows GOP Hypocrisy on States Rights: Quote of the Day

National reciprocity is evidence of GOP hypocrisy on states rights

courtesy breakdownofamerica.com

“When it comes to the federal government’s role, Republicans in state capitals have for decades pushed back at federal dictates, most recently on Obamacare and water rights. Yet when it comes to constitutional state laws on guns, this principle evaporates. That it’s happening so soon after two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history makes it all the more unfathomable. Here’s hoping Senate Republicans have fewer hypocrites — and more members willing to tell the National Rifle Association no.” – Editorial: Here’s another reason to object to concealed-carry gun bill [via sandiegouniontribune.com]

comments

  1. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

    I happen to agree. Republicans and principles are firmly divorced. When Democrats are in charge, they scream and cry about liberty and states rights. When they’re in charge, they wield the federal hammer like a monkey on PCP.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      states rights do not override constitutional rights. There is no inconsistency with GOP votes in favor of national reciprocity and states rights.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Well try and tell that to libtards that think the gov gives us rights. The whole constitution is lost on these morons. The 10th is just as difficult for a hindbrain to grasp as the 1st or 2nd. We are talking about people that voter for a guy based on his race, hope, and change. Not exactly razor sharp…

        1. avatar Michael Clark says:

          If it should come down to it ever in the future the 2nd Amendment will be only upheld by those who have firearms, rights literally don’t exist if people do not defend them. The people of the country who remain less active politically literally allow the people’s representatives to get away with their own individual agenda and not those they represent. While more stay silent, more grow ignorant of how the laws affect real people.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        “Constitutional Rights” do not have to be legislated. Therefore it is not applicable to this bill.

      3. avatar RMS1911 says:

        I’m glad somebody else understands the states have no say so over the second amendment and never have.

        1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Except that states always have and continue to do so.

          The Second Amendment wasn’t even incorporated on the states until the last decade. The Framers considered, and rejected, binding the states by the 2A during the Constitutional Convention. The Framers left gun policy at the state level to the states. See the 10th amendment.

          Moreover, even within the Supreme Court’s Heller and MacDonald decisions, thr majority held that states may continue to regulate firearms in terms of possession by certain people, carry in certain places, and the qualifications of those in the commercial trade of guns.

          Please refrain from declaring your incorrect, albeit personally favored, Constitutional positions as facts. Some kid is apt to come along an misinterpret your certitude for rectitude.Oki

      4. avatar Jesse says:

        States don’t have rights, citizens have rights. States are granted limited powers by citizens.

      5. avatar B. Roberts says:

        Yes, there is inconsistency in principles because nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to set rules regarding police power by the states. To the extent the states violate the Second Amendment, that is a matter for the judiciary and not Congress. The only way Congress can claim authority over the right to carry is through a very stretched interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the GOP has argued against in the past.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Go read Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          ” nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority….”

          Au contraire:
          – – – – –
          Amendment Fourteen

          Section 5

          The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
          – – – – –

          That was included because it was the only way to make sure the southern states would pay any attention at all.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I seem to recall that SCOTUS in the McDonald ruling incorporated the Second Amendment and affirmed that it superseded State law on the right to keep and bear arms.

      It certainly seems to me that this would preclude the claim of States Rights when it comes to national reciprocity which, although it legitimizes unconstitutional permitting processes for the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, is at least a step towards Constitutional carry.

      The unconstitutional foundation of gun control has been solidly built. It would appear that the best we can do at this point is chip away at it until the edifice crumbles and greater numbers of law-abiding gun owners peacefully traversing states with otherwise draconian gun laws will go a long way to prove to the public that Constitutional Carry is not the end of the universe.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      States don’t have rights. Individuals do. The bill of rights applies everywhere in America. The state has no right to trample on them, and if a state does, it must be corrected by the federal government. And if the opposite occurs, the fed must be correct by the states.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” sure sounds like it establishes a right at the state (not federal or individual) level.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I don’t think necessary is synonymous or interchangeable with right in this context. Besides, it is not the State that desires or enjoys the state of being free in this context; rather, it is the People. “…a free State” implies a State in which the liberty of the People is maintained.

        2. avatar Em says:

          It sounds like a meaningless sentence fragment.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          SurfGW
          that’s an intentional mis-interptretation of “State”. State there meant “country”, and still does, that’s why we have a national “Secretary of State” and a “State Department”.

        4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “.. the security of a free State”

          No.

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Delaware….

          That might read OK and even be grammatically correct it makes no sense as an Amendment because the Bill of Rights is a list of individual Rights, States do not have individual rights. States are made up of individuals and those individuals have the rights.

        5. avatar Mark N. says:

          This portion of the clause does not refer to the individual states, otherwise it would be plural. What it refers to is the whole of the People as a political entity, i.e. the federal state whose security is guaranteed not by a standing army, but by the militias of the various states.

        6. avatar Roymond says:

          A history professor when I was in college expounded that “a free State” did indeed refer to the individual states, since at the time they jealously guarded their sovereignty, but was not tied to that reference since the term would also — the Constitution having been ratified — refer to the country as a whole, a country in which there were sovereign states within a larger sovereign state. He stated that the word got an upper case letter in order to distinguish it from the term “a free state” as various philosophers at the time were using it, i.e. to describe the individual in the hypothetical natural condition, but that is also partook of that philosophical meaning since a free State would be a State within which citizens enjoyed freedom.

          He gave an interesting twist then, that part of being a free State was citizens being armed not just for service in defending the country, but by being armed they would inhibit and stop crime, since crime by its essence tramples on freedom — thereby importing self-defense into the amendment under the umbrella of protecting the free State. Thus a State would not be truly free unless its citizens, as Machiavelli argued, were abundantly armed.

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Stop being obtuse.

      2. avatar Joel says:

        Well said Hank

      3. avatar FB says:

        Agreed!
        As the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights must be enforced. Any official, appointed or elected at any level of government and guilty of any violation of an individual’s rights under the first ten Amendments, must be arrested, tried, and punished.
        If the government were to generate any type of new federal agency which I oppose 100% of the time, it should be one that enforces the Bill of Rights and law of the land to its fullest in every state.
        “Agency of the Constitution”

      4. avatar Danny338 says:

        Technically it’s the people of that state that are supposed to stop the state government from violating the people’s rights. That is one of the reasons why the sixth amendment preserves the right to trial by jury for all criminal prosecutions. It is the jury’s responsibility and duty to declare the accused ‘not guilty’ if the law they are prosecuting the defendants for breaking is unconstitutional or unjust. Few jurisdictions acknowledge that power of the jury, because it would also be an acknowledgement that sovereignty ultimately resides with the people.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Yep. One of my teachers in junior high got in hot water for explaining that!

          She also explained that states are referred to as having rights only in the sense that they can stand as a bulwark defending the rights of their citizens over against the federal government; were there no federal government, the term “states’ rights” would be meaningless in this context (though it would have meaning in the greater realm where any state/nation has the right to defend itself against another nation, a matter which again boils down to a state being a bulwark defending the freedom of its citizens). So states’ rights are in essence a conglomerate right, the gathered and united rights of the individual citizens.

      5. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        1) the BOR consist of limits on the power of the Fed over state and individual rights.
        2) what is “subordinate clause” for 500 Alex?

        A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

        The militia is necessary for collective defense (and subsequently individual defense), both from internal and external threats. That said, the best way to defend the rights of the people from internal and external threats was with the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Pundits have made this far more complicated than need be.

      6. avatar B. Roberts says:

        Amendment X:
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

        You know what power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution? The power to regulate concealed carry of firearms. By inference then, that power belongs to the states or the people; but it is certainly outside the authority of Congress.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Amendment XIV

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

          Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I agree that the GOP are full of hypocrites, especially at the federal level (where they are but one wing of the UniParty).

      But I disagree that they are hypocrites regarding states rights with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Under the second amendment, both as originally written and as-incorporated under the fourteenth amendment by MacDonald, states do not have the enumerated authority (and are in fact expressly prohibited to) infringe upon the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      Simply put: it’s not a states’ rights issue. But the GOP will likely be all hat and no cattle on the issue, anyway.

    5. avatar BradP says:

      2nd Amendment is before the 10th Amendment and the supremacy clause is before both of them. Words written down are read in order for a reason.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Umm, no, at least not according to the debates at the time these amendments were written.

    6. avatar Higgs says:

      The GOP has made a lot of mistakes and I am not a fan of the current leadership and there lack of actions, and when they do act they act like Democrats. That being said, and assuming I am reading this bill correctly (Not a Lawyer), this bill was written brilliantly. Not only does it not show the Hypocrisy of the GOP regarding states’ rights, it shines a bright light on anti-gun states discrimination and it potentially forces the antis to actively pursue banning guns which consistently backfires on them.

      Here is how I read the first couple of sections of the bill
      • If you allow concealed carry, you cannot discriminate against citizens of other states who have concealed carry permits.
      • If you want to ban concealed carry you have to ban it for every one including your own citizens.
      • OH by the way – the rules apply to magazines and ammunition so you can not ban them either.

      So pick you poison anti-gun State – do you want to discriminate or do you want to ban guns and violent the 2nd amendment challenges.

      Here is where the states’ rights arguments fall apart –
      • Can Private owner ban guns – sure we believe in property rights.
      • Can the Local government ban guns on its property – sure, again we believe in States power over its own property
      • Carry permit holders can carry on most federal lands.

      Now the teeth.
      • So Anti-gun State/county/city your still going to arrest citizen who has a valid permit and is not doing anything illegal. Guess what – The wronged citizen can file a law suit against you for depravation, Damages, and attorney fees.

      Will it pass? Will it work if it does? I do not know. Its not constitutional carry but does take a big wack at local goverment bullies.

    7. avatar Robert says:

      I see Reciprocity as affirming the second amendment. The “shall not be infringed”. The fourteenth amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities”.
      Our rights come from the creator and are acknowledge. They are reserved to the people and are not granted from the government.

  2. avatar Darren says:

    Sorry, but individual rights trump state’s rights. You don’t let states ignore the bill of rights, and H.R. 38 is a step in the right direction.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      States don’t have rights, they have powers. The 10th Amendment reads ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Powers, not rights. Only individuals have rights. Also, they are only granted powers that do not conflict with the limits placed on them by the Constitution, which would include that little phrase, ‘Shall not be infringed’.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Nailed it. The 10th is actually one of the easiest to understand. Then again you have be able to read to understand what words mean. We thought shall not be infringed was easy, but government school indoctrination shows us that sentence is actually very very very difficult to grasp.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Bingo, Gov.

        “…nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people…” includes, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        The People universally assert a prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, by all levels of government subordinate to the Constitution. There is a reason that the first amendment uses the language, “Congress shall…”, and that the second amendment does not.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Indeed. So many of “our people” do not want to understand that the constitution was origionally a block on the central government, and not the individual states, except where clearly defined in the constitution. It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment that the entirety of the US constitution was declared imposed upon the states. That meant the 2d Amendment was then applied against the states. States no longer had the authority to govern whether or not the people of the states could keep and bear firearms. The full language of the 2d Amendment restricted even the states from infringing.

          In the end, neither the central government, nor the state governments are keeping their hands off the RTKBA. Since the 2d Amendment applies equally to both governing entities, legislation that reinforces RTKBA across the states is in line with the application of the US constitution to both the US and state governments. Nothing inconsistent here.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          Sam I Am, the language of the Second prohibits ANYONE from infringing — it’s an absolute and open-ended statement. If it were meant only against government it would have said so.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The statement is absolute, but the application definitely is not.

          The only “rights” you have are the ones you can personally defend and enforce.

    2. avatar stan says:

      Agreed. The fed law would reinforce the Constitutional right of every citizen. The states currently violating those rights can pound sand. They don’t have a right to violate an individual’s rights.

  3. avatar stateisevil says:

    Nice Try. But state laws criminalizing the mere peaceful carrying of individual arms are not “constitutional state laws”. If New York wanted to arrest all people with red hair and put them in camps would that be a violation of state’s rights also? The bill of rights is the law of the land, period.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      I have been waiting for that. Being a guard around pretty ginger girls would be awesome!

      1. avatar ORCON says:

        It’ll mostly be portly dudes named Chad.

      2. avatar BLoving says:

        Careful. While some will undoubtedly be pretty, many of the rest won’t be. And you’ll be required to guard them too.
        🤠

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      So who determines what is Constitutional? Literally everybody? Or somebody?

      If it’s everybody, then there is nothing that isn’t Constitutional because I have heard people make Constitutional arguments for almost literally everything. Maybe murder could remain illegal.

      If you want something besides anarchy, you’ve got a couple of choices… a vote, which kinda negates the idea of a Constitution, or something like the Supreme Court to make decisions.

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Spare me you hypocrisy, Leftist scum.

    A whole lot of states would have *loved* to have kept Blacks “in their place” and at the back of the bus in the 1950s-1960s until equal rights were rammed down their throats.

    It’s high damn time the 2A had the same standing as the rest of the Bill Of Rights.

    Those fuckwits really have me tempted to start a GoFundMe to fund Serge’s rotary wing flight training and a nice starter Robinson or classic Vietnam-era Huey.

    Fuck them and the horses they rode in on…

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      You fail to note that it was the demtard party that was intent on “Keeping Blacks in their place”.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Details.

        It’s always those pesky details…

        *mutter* 😉

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        As of a couple of decades after the Civil War, both parties were complicit in keeping blacks “in their place”.

  5. avatar CLarson says:

    Going to gloss over the original Republican, Lincoln? The Republicans aren’t hypocrites on state rights, they are consistent.

    1. avatar B. Roberts says:

      Touché!

  6. avatar LeftyLoons says:

    When it comes to state’s rights like slavery, Democrats are for those for sure!

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Don’t forget segregation and Jim Crow. The Dems were pretty big on states rights over them too.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Nothing changes. The democrats have always been about marginalizing unpopular demographics – at various times in history (and today)it has been: Blacks. Japanese. Jews. Catholics. Irish. Italians. Native Americans. All denominations of Christians and of course, Gun Owners. Lord knows who it will be next generation.
      The oppressed demographic du jour changes from decade to decade depending on how many votes the Democrats think they can count on every other year… but the play book stays the same: pass laws to oppress a particular group so the majority will like you and keep you in power. Equality has never been the objective of the Democrat Party.

      1. avatar Horacemann says:

        So republicans have never ever marginalized or attempted to marginalize a particular demographic. Uh huh.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          You should brush up on your history.

  7. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

    So much fail.
    In this case, the 10th Amendment makes it CLEAR:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Anything involving more than one state => Federal (Interstate Commerce Clause). Since the Bearing of Arms is in the US Constitution, it cannot be reserved to the States to decide how one can legally bear arms.

    This should, IMHO, be the Constitutional challenge taken up by the USSC on State Gun Laws; They violate the both the 2nd and 10th Amendment.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Make that Second, Tenth, and Fourteenth.

  8. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    So where are the Democrats who are upset about the 34 NFA, 68 GCA, Hughes Amendment and the AWB? Don’t those go against state’s rights if National Reciprocity does? Talk about hypocrisy…

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Not to mention obamacare…

  9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    First, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, so I’m not sure where they get this ‘states rights as a Republican’ thing.

    Second, so it’s OK for them (California Democrats) to get me (Iowa Republican) thrown off my health insurance but it’s not OK for me to force them to honor the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America because at least they’re not hypocrites about states rights. I’m thinking either someone needs to explain this hypocrisy thing to me or to them.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Because this is 2017 and not 1865. Because if you’ve paid attention to politics in the last two centuries you’d know what the Southern Strategy was and would remember that the GOP has been about state’s rigths since then because it has nothing to do with the party of 1865 except the name.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Which party is it that’s determined that states have the ‘right’ to nullify the Constitution?

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        If you had ever taken your own advice and followed politics and brushed up on your history, you’d know that the “Southern Strategy” is a myth.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Beat me to it. I was going to post the same video.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Great minds. 😉

  10. avatar Mad Max says:

    That view of State’s rights would have been correct prior to July 9th, 1868.

    After the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the prohibitions against Government infringement of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were extended to State and local governments through Incorporation.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      This. Lincoln and the Civil War answered the States rights question by annihilating any dissenters and the subsequently dictated Reconstruction era amendments stand to override the States.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Looks like somebody knows how to read. Seriously, how do people not get that?

  11. avatar Hank says:

    States have powers/authority. They don’t have “rights”.

  12. avatar Grant says:

    The Republicans should just pass a law that everyone needs to join the NRA or pay a tax. Since SCOTUS gave Obama Care its stamp of approval, I don’t see how they could strike this down.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      OOoo! That would be fun, wouldn’t it?

  13. avatar A Z says:

    “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. . . . [W]e hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

    -McDonald v. Chicago

    “The freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.”

    -Obergefell v. Hodges

  14. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    This argument amounts to “we don’t have standards but we expect you to stick to yours.”

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Exactly…

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        And A _ _ f v < |<
        The life
        Out of the
        EVIL
        POS
        (D)

  15. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Support for National Reciprocity Shows GOP Hypocrisy on States Rights: Quote of the Day”

    What a hoot…Republicans are the ones that want to give right back to the states and relinquish federal oversight…this individual is obviously a left handed liberal(the WORST kind) and talks from both sides of their face…

    1. avatar Porkchop says:

      Well, no, not really — this bill would require every state to recognize out-of-state permits, regardless of whether the holder of an out-of-state permit would be able to get a permit in any given state. That takes away the power of individual states to make their own decisions regarding concealed carry and requires states to comply with a federal mandate. The power of each state to make its own decisions on matters of public policy is the essence of “states’ rights.” So, this bill is incompatible with “states’ rights” writ broad.

      That being said, neither party has any particular respect for the concept of “states’ rights” except when it provides a convenient basis to oppose the other party’s program du jour. There is hypocrisy on both sides. Pick almost any partisan issue that involves the expansion of federal power and the party in opposition (or parts of it, at least) will proclaim that it violates “states’ rights.” The reality, like it or not, is that between the 14th Amendment and the expanded reading of the Commerce Clause beginning in the 1930’s, there are very few areas of public policy that the federal government cannot affect directly

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        That takes away the power of individual states to make their own decisions regarding concealed carry and requires states to comply with a federal mandate.

        This is untrue.

        For one, licensing is not merely a matter of concealed carry. There is an unfortunate labyrinth of inter-state statutes regarding concealed carry, open carry, and unspecified carry. So, reciprocity is really a matter of carry, period. Any given state’s status quo regarding manner of carry remains in effect under federal reciprocity.

        For another, the entire point of reciprocity is that states don’t have the authority to deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry, regardless of that citizen’s state of residence. States that refuse to provide a lawful means for a law-abiding non-resident to carry are inherently and unconstitutionally infringing upon the rights of those non-residents. (See also: Obergfell v Hodges.)

        And finally: reciprocity introduces no federal mandate regarding state firearm-carry statutes. States still determine lawful manner (open/concealed), means (firearm types/calibers, magazine restrictions, etc.), and location of carry.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Although I do not disagree, the Ninth Circus does. In Peruta, it held that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm, and hence no right to a concealed firearms permit. Further, California banned open loaded carry in 1968, and open unloaded carry in 2013 in all incorporated cities and towns (i.e. all urban areas). When combined with the Gun Free School Zones Act, it is essentially illegal to carry without a CCW in any urban area (and some specified unincorporated areas) in the State. And even if the open carry ban is overturned, as it might be, the GFSZA still makes it impossible to open carry firearms pretty much everywhere people actually live. Thus, in California anyway, the federal courts applying federal law have held that the Second Amendment right is subservient to the right of the people to a secure state.

        2. avatar Porkchop says:

          I didn’t say that it was a good idea to allow states to limit concealed carry; in fact, hope that the bill passes. But, that being said, this would force the 21 states that currently do not issue nonresidents concealed carry permits, to recognize concealed carry permits of nonresidents. Regardless of whether you support that change or not, it still limits the power of the states to make that determination, and is not really compatible with the theory of “states’ rights.”

          Certainly, there are bases to argue that federal law is an appropriate vehicle to make that change — those states are discriminating against nonresidents with respect to a fundamental right. Unfortunately, the law is not overly clear on exactly what the extent of that right is. I live in Virginia; here open carry is a matter of right and concealed carry is “shall-issue.” But in other states, like Illinois, there is no open carry, and there is no concealed carry for nonresidents, but there is concealed carry for residents with a Firearms Owners ID card and a permit. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is apparently just fine with that and the Supreme Court has not intervened. The case law in that circuit basically says that the State of Illinois has the right to make that judgment — in other words, an exercise of “states’ rights.”

          The overarching point here is that the either party’s invocation and application of “states’ rights” is basically a matter if whose ox is being gored at the time.

        3. avatar cisco kid says:

          quote—————————-And finally: reciprocity introduces no federal mandate regarding state firearm-carry statutes. States still determine lawful manner (open/concealed), means (firearm types/calibers, magazine restrictions, etc.), and location of carry.————————————–quote

          Wrong. Federal Law would trump all State laws otherwise Federal Reciprocity would not work period. A State like California could simply outlaw concealed carry of certain common popular calibers say 9×19, 40 S&W and .45acp effectively keeping anyone from out of State from carrying in their State. They could do the same with types of weapons as well such as banning concealed carry of all semi-auto pistols and all revolvers with barrels less than 12 inches long. And California has already outlawed all carry by ruling concealed carry is not a right in their State and that since they refused to rule on prior bans on open carry that they now have effectively banned all carry. Just a few of many examples on how once passed the Federal Law would have to be the only law that would count. Of course if passed it would once again prove the Feds do as they wish and State Constitutional provisions be damned and always have been a joke as even when the Feds have not blatantly violated States rights they just threaten to withhold Federal Cash money and the State Governments cave in like a house of rotten cards. Even State National Guard units now no longer legally exist as they were absorbed under the control of the Feds and for good reason the Feds wanted no threats from States if and when they take the peoples rights away.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You have a complete failure of understanding of federally mandated reciprocity.

          It impacts only WHO may carry. It has zero impact on anything else. Recipeocity only means that State A, if it issues carry licenses to its own residents, must recognize the resident carry licenses issued by State B to its own residents.

          Now, the house bill may attempt other provisions, but those provisions a) aren’t a matter of reciprocity, and b) aren’t assured of withstanding legal challenge.

        5. avatar cisco kid says:

          to chips in the head

          quote——————–It impacts only WHO may carry. It has zero impact on anything else. Recipeocity only means that State A, if it issues carry licenses to its own residents, must recognize the resident carry licenses issued by State B to its own residents.—————-quote

          You just contradicted your prior post on the reciprocity law.

          And again if Federal Law was not supreme over the States then anyone crossing borders would be subject to State B’s laws which he probably either would not be fully aware of or if he was not able to comply with either as his gun may have been outlawed in that state do to brand or caliber which would get him arrested. In other words the Federal Law would be a joke and would not protect anyone crossing State lines. And also many States have conflicting laws on who is banned from carrying firearms. In one state an infraction of some law may not prevent a person from carrying and in another state the same infraction would and its all on the record which again would get some people arrested for attempting to carry in State B if Federal Law did not over ride state law.

          Your statements make no logical sense whatsoever as the complexity of a reciprocity law will keep a group of dozens of Philadelphia Lawyers busy for the next 200 years if Federal Law does not trump State laws when a reciprocity law is passed if it ever is, which is about as likely as a snowball in hell not melting.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Nope; no contradiction – not even with minor inter-state differences in definitions of “prohibited” (or “proper”) persons.

          Even with reciprocity, I will be limited to a ten-round magazine in New York state, and prohibited from carrying hollow point rounds in New Jersey.

        7. avatar Excedrine says:

          @crisco kid — He’s right, you mean. And yes, yes you do. This law does not, in any way, tell states what permit holders may carry or where they may carry it. Nor is it required for interstate reciprosity to work, nor have you offered any cogent arguments to explain why it would. Meanwhile, many counties in The People’s Republikkk of KKKommiefornia still remain effectively ‘Shall Issue,’ as several actual residents of that deep blue shithole have previously attested. Federal law would not change this, either. Oh, and there are, in fact, State Guard and State Self-Defense Force units that operate outside the auspices of the National Guard, too. Not that you would know this, naturally, because you do absolutely zero research whatsoever into literally anything you prattle on about.

          You just contradicted your prior post on the reciprocity law.

          The only contradictions here are actually yours. And again, the national reporocity law as it’s currently written does not totally override existing state law, either. States can still decide who may carry in their states, what they may carry, and where they may carry it. Had you actually ever read the law instead of simply spouting off FakeBook and Twaddle propaganda that was spoon-fed to you, you’d know this. But, you haven’t because it’s literally against your best interest to have an informed opinion on anything under the sun. Your statements make no logical sense, they never did, and they never will, as the simplicity of this reciprocity law would only keep any group of municipal or state lawyers busy for the next decade or so.

      2. avatar WI Patriot says:

        You must be one of those individuals that’s never satisfied, with anything, therefore, there’s just no pleasing you…and as a result, you’ll just continue to do, whatever it is you want to do, regardless of how it affects others…

      3. avatar cisco kid says:

        to porkchop

        Quote—————————–Here’s an explanation for the non-lawyers: The Supreme Court declined to grant the petition for certiorari to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan. That means that the decision remains good law, but only in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). The court has no authority over federal courts outside those states, so other U.S. courts of appeals and U.S. district courts are free to ignore the decision if they so choose. In other words, this was a non-decision decision, because denials of certiorari have no precedential value.————————-Quote

        I take no issue with your statement at all but we need to add something very important here. The Courts are made up of extremely arrogant people who are not about to “lose face”. The Courts are very aware of what the other jurisdictions have ruled on and if they rule the opposite way they reduce their “sit at the right hand of God credibility” whether or not they are rabid left wing or right wing and when it comes to gun bans more seem to be anti-gun as History as certainly proven in all the anti-gun decisions they have made over the years right up to the present. This Second Amendment gutting on this recent decision is far, far more serious than one might think. It gives the anti-gun fanatical courts in the recent California Confiscation Ban all the excuse they need to forget worrying about their recent decision to legalize this ban being in any danger of being rescinded by higher courts. A snow ball in hell would have a better chance of not melting. And remember if a challenge to this ban does go higher in the courts the Supreme Court is not in any way going to reverse themselves this soon as they would all look like a bunch of incompetent Morons. After all they would be the last group of gangster criminals that would admit they do not sit at the right hand of God.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Then it’s really too bad that you even admitted that the SCoTUS rendered no decision at all in that case, and thereby giving no one anywhere permission to do anything. Your stupidity, hypocrisy, and willful pig ignorance is showing yet again, Crisco Skinhead. 😉

      4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “The reality, like it or not, is that between the 14th Amendment and the expanded reading of the Commerce Clause beginning in the 1930’s, there are very few areas of public policy that the federal government cannot affect directly.”

        I’d just like to emphasize the “like it or not” part.

  16. avatar Bruce says:

    The problem goes beyond the 2nd Amdt (incorporated for the states by the 14th Amdt). The basic problem is that in the current legal environment, states can make travel difficult for those with concealed carry permits from other states. We have national reciprocity of drivers’ licenses because having different requirements for driving through different states would adversely affect the ability by Americans to drive State to State. Goodbye driving across the country for vacations, or even the drive to work every day I did decades ago from VA through DC to MD, and back at night. My driver’s license was good in each state, as well as my title and registration (which was a problem, because VA and MD required insurance for auto registration, but DC didn’t, and I was hit twice by uninsured DC residents in VA). Why should concealed carry be any different? Why should you have to remove your handgun from its holster, and lock it in a container, just to drive through DC, a trip that used to take me maybe 15 minutes?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The difference is that there is no federal law mandating national reciprocity for driver’s licenses. Instead, the feds merely leaned (heavily) on the states to enter into bilateral reciprocity agreements, the carrot and the stick being federal highway funds or the withholding of same. Given the economic importance of the national highway system to each and every state, the states succumbed to the pressure.

  17. avatar Jsec2 says:

    We should be having a discussion about a Constitutional Carry bill. No permits necessary.

    Yet here we are. One way or another, the gov will screw up national reciprocity if passed. And the commie states will make their laws more confusing and ambiguous for visitors to those states.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      We already have a Constitutional carry law, it’s called the Second Amendment. Another lesser law simply passed by Congress would have even less effect on state demagogues who refuse to believe they are not all-powerful.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        What about a law to force States to integrate The Bill of Rights into their State Constitution? They are part of the US after all. So why not reflect that in their State Constitution?

        California says they don’t have to follow the 2nd Amendment of The US Constitution because they don’t explicitly have such an amendment in their State Constitution.

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          They still have to follow it because of the supremacy clause.

  18. avatar cisco kid says:

    Forget it. The Supreme Court in its latest decision went with public panic and opinion by reversing the Heller Decision and burning the rotting corpse of Sacalia. The Supreme Courts decision in regards to banning modern assault rifles set a new prescident that the States have that right and can ban and or confiscate any weapons they desire. This means the illegal banning of semi-auto rifles by the Massachusetts Attorney General without even passing a new law is now legal. It means the confiscation of all semi-auto rifles in California over the next 2 years is legal and even more insidious is the next target for destruction and rape of rights which will be all semi-auto pistols as well as they will be the next assault weapon ban to be passed in the near future and its all legal according to the Supreme Courts latest decision.

    Ditto even if the National Reciprocity act would past as the first law suit that would be leveled against it would win in court from a Supreme Court that would rule to remove the new law to calm public panic over the new law. For many Republicans usurping States Rights would be a conflict of their belief in States Rights over that of the Federal Government because they believe States have the right to rape the Constitutional rights of minorities and religions other than Christianity. The latest report was that there are already Republicans lining up against this bill and it should be no surprise to the Far Right Fanatics that erroneously think the Republicans are always pro gun, look how fast they killed the lunatic silencer bill when faced with public outrage and panic over the California mass murder shootings. After all politics is politics and wipe your ass with the Constitution.

    In conclusion take the Constitution and wipe your ass with it as it always has been a joke because of what the Supreme Court has ruled on in the past and I am not speaking just about Second Amendment rights either.

    In a way the hill jacks are getting what they deserve because they supported the NRA from extending the Brady Bill to cover all gun purchases, were against safe storage laws, were against security alarm systems and were against mandatory mental health tests for all gun owners as well as requiring the States to turn over mental health records to the Brady Bill background check system all of which lets nut cases and criminals buy any and every gun and any amount of ammo they want any time they want it. Most civilized countries shake their heads in total disbelief but this what you get when you let a bunch of irresponsible hillbillies influence reasonable and civilized gun control measures which unfortunately have sacrificed the lives of 10,000 children each year in either being crippled for life or shot to death and this does not include the 33,000 gun deaths of adults (2015). Yes for the unwashed the body count can never be too high as it would inconvenience these people who are pro-criminal and pro-rights for nut cases.

    Yes the Lunatic Far Right Fanatics will argue it was only 9,999 children shot not 10,000 and it was only 32,999 adult deaths instead of 33,000 so its nothing to be concerned about because we should not be inconvenienced to go through a back ground check or keep guns locked up in safes or have security alarm systems or flag nut cases from attempting to buy weapons of mass destruction. The Far Right Lunatics say “get used to mass shootings and our freeways turning into shooting galleries” as now its “the new norm” and the American Way of Life (drum roll and National Anthem music playing and with background video of weekend militia racists bayoneting homeless Latino children who snuck across the border.).

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bullshit.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        If it wasn’t for lies this hillary loving pos would have nothing.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The Supreme Court in its latest decision…

      SCOTUS doesn’t have an applicable, recent decision. Not granting cert is not the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination, as having heard a case and subsequently issuing a decision.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        to chips in the head

        Quote————————SCOTUS doesn’t have an applicable, recent decision. Not granting cert is not the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination, as having heard a case and subsequently issuing a decision.——————————-Quote

        Where do you live in a cave. It was all over the news this last week. The Supreme Court refused to hear the lower courts ruling that gave the States the right to outlaw and confiscate semi-auto rifles and that genius includes even the 1901 Winchester self loading rifle. This ruling means the other lawsuit over the California confiscation and melt down law stands and that other lawsuit is now dead in the water. What part of this do you not understand.

        http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27/supreme-court-guts-second-amendment-refusing-hear-semi-auto-ban-case/

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          So, you admit that SCOTUS issued no ruling.

          Now, do you understand the impact of failing to grant cert, as opposed to issuing a ruling?

        2. avatar Porkchop says:

          Here’s an explanation for the non-lawyers: The Supreme Court declined to grant the petition for certiorari to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan. That means that the decision remains good law, but only in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). The court has no authority over federal courts outside those states, so other U.S. courts of appeals and U.S. district courts are free to ignore the decision if they so choose. In other words, this was a non-decision decision, because denials of certiorari have no precedential value.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You may be grasping at straws. The other side of your statement is that all the lower courts may look at the refusal of the SC to take on “gun rights” again as a sign that the SC has no interest in sorting things out, permanently. Therefore, those same courts can just as well decide that they can use the 4th Circuit affirmed decision (if you allow something to go unchecked, you affirm its validity in fact) as precedence to arrive at similar or same judgements. We would be truly naive to believe for a nano second that the other courts will use the refusal of Cert as a justification for further protecting 2A.

          To give you an inside peek, I have the current issue of “The Federal Times” magazine. In it there is a discussion of how the SC is revisiting FOR THE THIRD TIME IN FOUR YEARS, whether a person who does not want to belong to a union can be forced to pay dues to that union. Compare that with the refusal of the SC to bluntly clarify the status of 2A for all courts. Do you really want to believe a refusal to grant Cert is a plus for us?

        4. avatar Porkchop says:

          No, I am not grasping at straws, I am trying to share what I have learned during 36 years of practicing law in federal district and appellate courts. It may be hard for you to believe, but most judges actually do pay attention to the arguments before them most of the time. Judges decide the cases before them based on the facts and the law in that case as presented by the lawyers litigating the case. A denial of certiorari is a non-event in terms of precedential value. Other courts can and often do ignore cases from other circuits. They may choose to follow Kolbe, but many will likely find the dissent more persuasive, as I do.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          To continue the deconstruction of the justice system, judges rule based primarily on their own opinions (we can only talk about appellate courts, juries are whole ‘nuther country). Because the SC is the most recognizable, do you truly believe the five “non-conservative” justices do not primarily vote according to their prejudices? Sotomeyer and Kagan have written that the SC needed their Hispanic view on the law to better reflect the flow of the national culture. If justices really applied the law without their own “experience” “informing” their decisions, the SC would have ruled long ago that the Second Amendment means what it says, on its face. No. The SC justices have ruled on 2A cases so as to “tweak” this, or that, to conform to what the majority believe is best for the country. Where do you think the entire concept of “compelling government interest” arose? In the courts, based on nothing but opinion and a patrimonial view of their rightful status in the structure of the government.

          Quite simply, if judges ruled according to law, there would be no “left” or “right”, no “liberal” or “conservative” label to be applied. All would be originalists.

        6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “The SC justices have ruled on 2A cases so as to “tweak” this, or that, to conform to what the majority believe is best for the country.” My only disagreement with your entire comment is that this statement is too specific, meaning it isn’t just 2A cases where this happens. It’s all the cases. In my opinion, Thomas, Gorsuch, and probably Alito will vote for what they believe the law to be; the other six will vote on what they believe the law should be or what they would like it to be.

          There is also probably a lot of undue deference to precedent. I’m not saying precedent should be ignored, but why not say the 14A incorporates the Bill of Right through the privileges and immunities clause instead of the due process clause? It wouldn’t even affect reliance, which is the main reason precedent is so important.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Precedence” is a minefield. “The Law” needs a useful amount of stability, else utter chaos. However…precedence should be approached carefully, not considered immutable except as a last resort in extreme circumstances. I interpret this worship of precedence as a sign of lazy thinking, rather than consensus that whatever went before is neigh onto written on stone tablets. A minefield.

          The foundation for the 14th should have been based on the truth: relegating states to mere political subdivisions of the central government; an exercise of raw power. Every other justification is just Cudzu to obscure the truth.

        8. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Agree with paragraph one.

          I don’t really care why the 14A was instituted except insofar as it tells me what I want to know, what does it mean? But it definitely is one of the top five power expansions of the federal government since the Constitution was ratified.

        9. avatar Roymond says:

          Superbly stated, Sam!

          I think it was Judge John Roll of Arizona who told a reporter once that his view was irrelevant, because the only question was what the Constitution’s view was. That made him seem a radical to those on both the left and the right. It was a sad day for this country when he was killed and Giffords lived.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Superbly stated, Sam!”

          Just a blind squirrel, here.

          Or stopped clock.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        to chips in the head

        quote—————-So, you admit that SCOTUS issued no ruling.

        Now, do you understand the impact of failing to grant cert, as opposed to issuing a ruling?———————–quote

        Nice try on twisting the truth but the truth stands. Supreme Court decisions often stand for decades and decades and since they refused to hear the case they effectively trashed both the Scalia ruling as well as the right to own not only modern weapons but all weapons. This goes far beyond just assault rifles as it will give the States the right to ban any and all weapons as they see fit and the current assault rifle bans and confiscation stand despite your bizarre fantasies to the contrary.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          SCOTUS did not issue a decision; therefore, there is no decision to stand – for decades or otherwise.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          Chip is right.

          Think of it like a treasure hunt: a decision constitutes a clue toward where you go next, but not granting cert is a black clue — it tells you absolutely nothing about where to go from there.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          Nice try at not telling the truth in the first place, but the actual truth stands. You admit that the SCoTUS did not issue a decision, which itself does not establish any kind of prescedent whatsoever, in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that they did. It does not give the states the right to ban anything, period, despite your bizzare fantasies to the contrary — which are in fact the only fantasies to be seen anywhere on the whole of this site.

      3. avatar cisco kid says:

        to chips in the head

        Quote———————-SCOTUS did not issue a decision; therefore, there is no decision to stand – for decades or otherwise.———————-quote

        Peddle your bizarre ranting’s to the people of the State that lost their Second Amendment rights to own an Assault rifle. Now tell me Bizzarro how are you going to blatantly lie your way out of this one. Really, when will you come down off your arrogant horse and admit you knew nothing about this decision and now that you do are trying to save face by twisting the god awful truth about it. Why not go all the way and claim its fake news like Herr Drumpf would do. All this would fit in with your bizarre little world of fantasies i.e. that the Supreme Court refusal to hear the case took no ones rights away. Yea sure bull shit me some more. Sane people know better, especially the poor devils that just lost all their Second Amendment rights in regards to the right to own assault rifles.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Peddle your bizzare rantings to Tumblr or any other hive of scum and villainy. Now, you egt to tell us, Bizzarro, how long are you going to blatantly lie to us? Really, when will you come down off of your arrogant high horse and admit that not only did you know absolutely nothing about how the SCoTOS or even how precedent works, but you’re the only one here even trying to twist anything to begin with? Why not go all the way and claim it’s the Russians like Herr Shillary would do? All of this would actually fit in your bizzare little world of fantasies, i.e. that the SCoTUS refusal to hear the case somehow took someone’s rights away? Yeah, sure, bullshit us some more. Sane people know better, especially the poor devils whose rights have not yet been addressed at the SCoTUS.

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      @crisco kid — Forget you. The SCoTUS issued no decision, period. It refused to hear the case, which is not the same as issuing a decision, and by itself creates no prescedent in the first place. So, no, it actually doesn’t mean that the TAXachusetts AG passed a sweeping AWB against state law is somehow legal. It hasn’t even been addressed yet. It also doesn’t mean that the confiscation of guns in KKKommiefornia is somehow legal, either; and it won’t happen, anyway. This, too, has not even been addressed yet.

      You don’t know whether the SCoTUS would grant cert to any lawsuit against the Act in the first place, let alone if they would strike it down. Hell, you don’t onow anything about anything, period, for that matter. States don’t have rights to begin with, they have powers. Individuals have rights. States do not have the right to usurp the right to keep and bear arms in any form or fashion, whatsoever. It should be no surprise to Far Left Fanatics that the Republicrats currently lining up against the bill will be swung in favor of it. The lunatics who voted against the perfectly sensible silencer deregulation bill will also vote in favor it the next time it comes up in Congress, which will probably be the very next session if not the one following that.

      In conclusion, we’ll just wipe our asses with your inane, assinine, and nonssencial commentary about literally anything you talk about, because you don’t know jack shit about jack shit.

      In a way, the left-wing fascists (i.e. you) are getting what they deserve because they didn’t support the NRA’s blocking of the useless Brady Bill from covering all gun purchases, were for ineffective “safe storage” laws which are unenforceable without warrantless searches, were for unecessaraily heaping more costly measures like useless alarm systems, and were for new veritable poll taxes like psyche evals whose records are for a fact already included in the NICS checks, anyway. And it was the NRA who pushed the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 above all of the shrill screeching from you left-wing fascists that fought it tooth-and-nail. Any actually civilized country would shake their head in total disbelief at the draconian gun control schemes enacted in deep blue cesspools like KKKommiefornia, Screw-You Jersey, KKKomiefornia, and ZOO York. That’s what you get when you let a bunch of irresponsible pantywaists spread their unreasonable and uncivilized gun-grabbing measures, which are what’s actually sacrificed the lives of some 300 children every year — NOT the constantly-deubnked “10,000” lie you’re always spreading — and this IS included in the 30,000+ shooting deaths annually, two-thirds of which are suicides which gun-grabbing can’t prevent and 80% of the remainder are gang-related. Yes, for the unwashed like you, the body count can never be too high as it would inconvenience your protected criminal class.

      Yes, the Lunatic far Left Fanatics will argue it was “only” “10,000” children shot and not the actual 300+ and it was “only” “30,000+” deaths, without the actual breakdown of suicides and gang crimes to put that number in its proper perspective. But, it’s nothing to be concerned about because we should not be inconvenicned to actually attack the roots of suicidal and gang behavior. Instead, they insist that we should punish peaceable citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong with laws that will do absolutely nothing to protect anyone, at any time, in any place, under any circumstance whatsoever. The Far Left Lunatics say, “Get used to being lied to about mass shootings and road rage” as now it’s “the new norm” and the American Way of Life (drum roll and National Anthem music playing and with background video of weekend ANTIFA racists bayoneting homeless White children who did nothing to them but be White).

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    F ‘breakdownofamerica.com’ for their d1<K pic above.

  20. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    The political party that rode the “states’ rights” argument down in flames into the Civil War, the political party that wanted to federalize marriage as early as 1848… these clowns now want to yap and yammer about “states’ rights?”

    Bullcrap. The lost all credibility on the argument at the end of the Civil War atop a pile of over 600,000 corpses.

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    “Constitutional state laws,” they say.

    There is an argument for not allowing this bill to pass simply because of jurisdiction. However, there is also the argument that the US government has the power — under the 2nd Amendment — to deal with infringements on the human right to keep and bear arms.

    Depending on how the bill is written, it could be a passive aggressive move to deal with human rights infringements by using State “laws” against the States. I understand this approach can have a positive outcome by increasing the bearing of arms throughout the entire US, thus reducing crime over time, which then can be shown through statistics or studies. However, there is also the major risk that the US government can setup a nation wide permission slip scheme to exercise your human right like they do with driver licenses; then your human right becomes a privilege through law and in the minds of the populace. I much rather see a full push from the US government to get rid of all infringements on human rights that the States think is fine because they have “states’ rights.”

    Some say the civil war started over States claiming to have the “right” to take away another human’s freedom and liberty. Democrats say that it was a great thing for the US government to wage war on those States. The American people still have very negative feelings whenever they see the Confederate flag and Democrats are erasing any history that remains in public view of those times. Now those Democrats are arguing States should be able to violate human rights without the US government stopping them, even if the oppression reaches the point of requiring combat to liberate those citizens.

    Democrats think it’s okay/duty for the US government to get involved with marriage, education, abortion, etc. Just don’t get involved with removing human rights violations when it pertains to keeping and bearing arms.

    Republicans say they are for the human right to keep and bear arms, yet they argue against it at some points and they sit on their hands when they have the ability to reverse infringements. As long as the NRA gets them votes, they will maintain the oppression and increase the militarization of police forces.

    The only true power the individual can have is firepower. That is if you can keep it.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    I seem to remember reading that Democrats campaigned for the Fugitive Slave Act even though it contravened states rights.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Not only that, but the Confederate Constitution forbade any state from banning slavery. Not the ‘states’ rights’ utopia it was cracked up to be.

  23. avatar ironicatbest says:

    It’s all fake news. I’m really not concerned about state vs Federal I bought the gun , “they” said I could have, made in a factory “they” said could make it.

  24. avatar Republic says:

    States rights do not override inalienable rights! Enough said!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Could you elaborate on how you propose to enforce your “inalienable rights”?

      If you acquiesce to any law, regulation, ordinance that infringes upon your “inalienable rights”, you agreed that government can, indeed, restrict those “inalienable rights”, without a fuss from you (and almost everyone else). Complaints are not a “fuss”. Civil disobedience might rise to “fuss” level.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        It might surprise you, 2Asux, that mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day. As it should be.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/06/24/nearly-one-million-new-yorkers-didnt-register-their-assault-weapons/#2b576641702f

        http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210_1_assault-weapons-rifles-gun-registration-law

        https://www.ammoland.com/2015/11/los-angeles-bans-highcap-mags-not-1-turned-in/#axzz50FJkDLAp

        As well they shouldn’t register or turn in a damn thing. Gun control schemes accomplish one thing and one thing only: to punish peaceable people for owning property that they acquired legally and in good faith. It’s also racist, sexist, and classist as it’s applied here in America.

  25. avatar cisco kid says:

    Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/us/politics/trump-putin-russia-nra-campaign.html

  26. avatar cisco kid says:

    To chips in the head

    Quote———Nope; no contradiction – not even with minor inter-state differences in definitions of “prohibited” (or “proper”) persons. ——————— quote

    quote—-Even with reciprocity, I will be limited to a ten-round magazine in New York state, and prohibited from carrying hollow point rounds in New Jersey. ———–quote——————-

    I do not even have to try and make a fool out of you your so arrogant you succeeded in making a complete jack ass out of your self without me having to do anything. Your response actually proved what I previously said about the reciprocity law never working because of the myriad of State Laws which would make it impossible for anyone to travel through one state after another on vacation. Even if you aware of all the thousands of laws you would spend more time stopping the car at each border and going through gymnastics trying to stay out of jail than the trip would be worth taking with a gun. Even a Moron would realize that without Federal Law trumping all the myriad of State laws the Reciprocity would be a joke and totally unworkable.

    Congratulations you just got the “fool of the year of the award” back to back with the “ignoramuses award of the year” as you proved you understand nothing as to how unworkable such a law would be without Federal Law being dominate over State Laws and their are thousands of them. Now what part of this do you not understand? If you want I could send Tarzans Cheetah the monkey over to explain it all too you but I think your such a nut case even Cheetah would pull his hair out.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      We don’t even have try to make a fool out of you, you’re so arrogant yourself you have only succeeded brilliantly in that effort all by your lonesome. As if we could have ever expected anything less from Crisco Skinhead. Your responses actually proved what we previously said about the reciprocity law working as we said it would (barring any future amendments to it that is) because it still respects, NOT overrides, existing state laws in regards to time, place, and manner restrictions. Even a a Moron would realize that federal need not necessarily sweep aside state laws for interstate reciprocity to be perfectly workable.

      Congratulations, you just won your own “Fool of The Year Award” back-to-back with the “Ignoramus of The Year Award,” as you proved you understand nothing as to how workable such a law would be even without federal law sweeping aside all state statues. Now, what part of this do you not understand? Regardless if you don’t want it, I will send Tarzan’s Cheetah the monkey to your projects to explain to you and your whole ‘hood, and I rightly suspect that everyone else there but you could grasp it.

  27. avatar Excedrine says:

    It might surprise you, 2Asux, that mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/06/24/nearly-one-million-new-yorkers-didnt-register-their-assault-weapons/#2b576641702f

    http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210_1_assault-weapons-rifles-gun-registration-law

    https://www.ammoland.com/2015/11/los-angeles-bans-highcap-mags-not-1-turned-in/#axzz50FJkDLAp

    As well they shouldn’t register or turn in a damn thing. Gun control schemes accomplish one thing and one thing only: to punish peaceable people for owning property that they acquired legally and in good faith. It’s also racist, sexist, and classist as it’s applied here in America.

  28. avatar William Elliott says:

    Okay, here we go again.
    2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms with the phrase SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Notice that in other amendments Congress, or the states, or some other collective entity is specified, for instance the 1st “Congress shall make no law”. Given the specificity on one place and the lack there of in another, it implies that LEGALLY, “shall not be infringed” applies to not only the US government but all entities with the power to infringe that right.
    Add to that that the 9th amendment declares that rights not enumerated are not denied because they are not enumerated, and that the 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [emphasis mine]
    Remember how the 2nd Amendment didn’t say “Congress shall make no law” or “The executive branch shall not infringe”? The 2nd Amendment ALSO prohibits the States that are members of the United States from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    Congress should not be making ANY laws that infringe or manipulate the right to keep and bear arms. The SCOTUS and Executive branch should be nullifying laws contrary and enforcing the second amendment [respectively].

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Well stated!

    2. avatar MeRp says:

      Now, with the given context, where “shall not be infringed” means (paraphrasing here) “shall not be infringed”. What are they talking about with “Yet when it comes to constitutional state laws on guns”? I’m not sure which laws this may be referring to. Are there laws that require access to guns or otherwise relate to guns without infringing upon the rights to keep and to bear?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email