H.R. 38 still needs MORE CO-SPONSORS (50 State Reciprocity)

[Window_Seat]

Hey Guys, Gals...

So I created a list of GOP Congressional Reps who have NOT yet co-sponsored H.R. 38, which is the Congressional Bill entitled "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017".

Please click on the ATTACHMENT and begin CONTACTING those GOP members on this list, and URGE them (respectfully) to CO-SPONSOR H.R. 38, and tell them why (respectfully) why this bill is so important to our livelihoods, and our personal safety, as well as the personal safety of our loved ones. TELL THEM WHY it is important to begin the process of preventing sadistic bullies in states like New York, New Jersey and California to automatically FELONIZE the Law-Abiding and Responsible Citizens of the United States, who wish to protect themselves without being arrested and charged with a felony because they were exercising a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Erik.

 

[solus]

so after six year hiatus you forget forum protocol and post same info in three different areas...tisk tisk...

getting a rootbeer and awaiting the show

 

[Grapeshot]

Window_Seat - it is a serious violation of Forum Rules to post the same material more than once.

"If you do not agree with any of these Rules then please do not use this site, because BY USING THIS SITE YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE IRREVOCABLY AGREED TO THESE RULES. Please note that these Rules may be revised and reissued without notice at any time. You should review the current Rules regularly, since your continued use of the site will be deemed as irrevocable acceptance of any revisions."

Rule (7) NO SPAMMING: Links to spam/membership sites not related directly to firearms are NOT allowed under any circumstances! It is also considered spamming to [highlight]post the same thread[highlight] (even valid ones) to multiple forums or posting the same reply to multiple threads.

The duplicates have been removed/deleted.

Please read your PMs.

 

[Grapeshot]

Personally I am opposed to the National Reciprocity Act.

What would seem to be a good thing has a big fishhook in it. What the government gives, the government can take away. It is the foot in the door which needs to be stomped and the door slammed shut.

Far better I think to require that all states and the District become genuinely shall issue and then let each come to agreement(s) as has been accomlished with driving licenses.

 

[357SigFan]

Personally I am opposed to the National Reciprocity Act.

What would seem to be a good thing has a big fishhook in it. What the government gives, the government can take away. It is the foot in the door which needs to be stomped and the door slammed shut.

Far better I think to require that all states and the District become genuinely shall issue and then let each come to agreement(s) as has been accomlished with driving licenses.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, because I don't, but with the government as it is, how do you expect to accomplish that any differently from the National Reciprocity Act? The Constitution along with the Amendments, is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, which both the states and the feds are supposed to obey, but they routinely ignore the 2A - 'The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. Pretty clear wording - any state or federal law that infringes on our right to keep and BEAR arms (pretty much every law on the books) is in clear and direct violation of the 2A - but that doesn't seem to matter. Try the same kind of infringements with the 1A and watch holy H*** break loose. Unless we have some kind of total purge and reset from top to bottom (unlikely) or an iron clad ruling from the Supreme Court ordering the purge of anti 2A laws from both state and federal lawbooks, the only potential way to compel the states to do such a thing would be a federal law ordering them to do so. States like NY & NJ, along with DC are NOT going to do that willingly.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, because I don't, but with the government as it is, how do you expect to accomplish that any differently from the National Reciprocity Act? The Constitution along with the Amendments, is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, which both the states and the feds are supposed to obey, but they routinely ignore the 2A - 'The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. Pretty clear wording - any state or federal law that infringes on our right to keep and BEAR arms (pretty much every law on the books) is in clear and direct violation of the 2A - but that doesn't seem to matter. Try the same kind of infringements with the 1A and watch holy H*** break loose. Unless we have some kind of total purge and reset from top to bottom (unlikely) or an iron clad ruling from the Supreme Court ordering the purge of anti 2A laws from both state and federal lawbooks, the only potential way to compel the states to do such a thing would be a federal law ordering them to do so. States like NY & NJ, along with DC are NOT going to do that willingly.

Interesting word "compel," is it not.

verb (used with object), compelled, compelling.
1. to force or drive, especially to a course of action:
2. to secure or bring about by force.
3. to force to submit; subdue.
4. to overpower.
6. to use force.
7. to have a powerful and irresistible effect, influence, etc.

Note that there was no compelling force in acquiring the previously mentioned driving license acceptance.

The problem as I see it is that too many people want instant gratification - they want it soonest, they want it the easy way.....as if there were a free lunch. How many fish have swallowed the bait only to discover the barbed treble hook.

Getting broad acceptance of CC is a noble goal - worth doing the right way IMO.

 

[Va_Nemo]

Do some looking around here. About 1730 tonight, the DC CoA decided Wrenn, as panel decided, was good and there would be no full court hearing on the appeal. DC is now shall issue. It could get to SCOTUS and my thoughts are it will become like Heller and McDonald regarding carry.

Listen toward CA and NY. Methinks I hear screams of fear along with substantial loathing for 2A being wrought. I am a bit far away but it does sound like NYC and CA are screaming.

Nemo

 

[solus]

357sigfan, et al., the 'government' imposing their will on the states has not worked one iota in the past, e.g., immigration and illegal substances immediately come to mind and the State's flipping off the government by ignoring their immigration and substance mandates and do what they want to do.

 

[357SigFan]

The thing is ANY law created for the purpose of 'restoring' rights is problematic. The blatantly unconstitutional ones should be nullified. There shouldn't even be a need to compel anyone to abide by the constitution because they should be doing it anyway. In NO way does the Constitution grant any government agency - be it local, state or federal, the authority to in any way restrict, hinder or INFRINGE our right to keep and bear arms. Quite the opposite.

The right way to do it, IMO, is a massive Supreme Court case & ruling, finding all laws - local, state and federal - that hinder the right to keep and bear arms to be unconstitutional and thus null and void. If I had a container ship full of gold bricks, I'd make it my life's mission to make that happen. But sadly, I don't. Nobody really wants to see that happen, it seems. The NRA sure doesn't because if it did, they'd lose most (if not all) of their reason to exist.

Like I said - try to infringe on peoples 1st amendment rights and look out - everyone and their cousin will be screaming bloody murder. But the 2nd? Meh. Who cares. All of the amendments are of equal value and importance, but they sure aren't treated that way.

Solus, I think you totally failed to understand what I said. Let me be clearer: NO NEW LAWS SHOULD BE CREATED TO RESTORE OUR RIGHTS. Every government agency and division from the bottom to the top should be following The Constitution of the United States of America - not using it for toilet paper. As far as the 2A is concerned, it's pretty darn clear.

My point was short of a SC ruling, how would anyone expect any agency to abide by the Constitution? The states and feds will continue to do whatever the heck they want. Screw the Constitution.

 

[OC for ME]

...

Note that there was no compelling force in acquiring the previously mentioned driving license acceptance. ...

Of course there is.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/121/full-faith-and-credit-clause

Just cuz the states and feds choose to abide by the constitution on this singular point is irrelevant...no?

 

[Grapeshot]

Of course there is.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/121/full-faith-and-credit-clause

Just cuz the states and feds choose to abide by the constitution on this singular point is irrelevant...no?

Were the Full Faith and Credit Clause totally effective there would be no reason sought for state reciprocity.

 

[OC for ME]

Were the Full Faith and Credit Clause totally effective there would be no reason sought for state reciprocity.

Obviously. But, whose fault is that the clause is not applied properly...only one guess allowed.