House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!

[eye95]

It's Obama, vilify away, even when not warranted. His past conduct has earned vilification by the masses.

If President Obama is shrewd, he signs the bill, claiming to be pro-2A, even though he knows that the law will empower the feds to pass other laws that control how and when States issue licenses and permits.

Vilify this law, those who vote for it, those who support it, and the president if he signs it. Liberty will be lessened if it becomes law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Aknazer]

It's a double edged sword. Thank (not praise) him for vetoing a bad law, but villify him for not wanting to expand gum rights. Of course some of how you do this will be dependent on his reasoning for the veto.

There are things the feds could do to pass similar legislation that is Constititional, but it would be very restrictive and would not give the feds any new power and thus won't be passed.

 

[Redbaron007]

...[snip] It's a double edged sword. Thank (not praise) him for vetoing a bad law, but villify him for not wanting to expand gum rights. Of course some of how you do this will be dependent on his reasoning for the veto.

I agree.....we need more GUM rights....I don't like the current limitations!! :lol:

Just giving you a hard time....I knew what you meant!

 

[Aknazer]

I agree.....we need more GUM rights....I don't like the current limitations!! :lol:

Just giving you a hard time....I knew what you meant!

Doh! I just saw that, figured someone was going to notice, and sure enough once I hit refresh you had. Curse you phone typing.

 

[Gunslinger]

If President Obama is shrewd, he signs the bill, claiming to be pro-2A, even though he knows that the law will empower the feds to pass other laws that control how and when States issue licenses and permits.

Vilify this law, those who vote for it, those who support it, and the president if he signs it. Liberty will be lessened if it becomes law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Where you been?

 

[silver]

Before this goes any further, I think there is something that everybody needs to realize. This is not about guns, this is about power. EVERYTHING that government does is about power. Somewhere earlier in this thread, somebody said something about the minute percentage of sociopaths that seek positions of power. This is exactly what has happened and what has been happening for the last 200 years. Few in government are not sociopaths and few are doing anything other than dogmatically expanding their control over EVERYTHING.

Another current hot-button issue some of you may have heard of recently is the congressional insider trading exception. Certain members of government have made themselves millions with "legal-illegal insider trading". Sociopaths in positions of power, when writing legislation so that "no person has any advantage over another (in the case of capital gains)" somehow forgot to include themselves in the list of people who are restricted from performing such actions. Why? Because they are sociopaths, power-seeking moral-less individuals. They are better than you. They know better than you. They know what is best for you, and there for the should have rights that you, the low normal citizen person, do not. Left to their own devices, they will destroy you and your rights. They have been doing so extremely effectively for quite sometime now.

Still don't believe its all about power? Il point you (in the case of firearms law) to the NFA and the GFSZA. neither of those do anything but restrict what you can have and where you can carry it. The gov also ahs interests in automotive companies now, green energy, and through Obamacare, ALL insurance. Power Power Power.

 

[KYGlockster]

I'm personally divided on this issue.

I don't like the idea of the Federal Government butting into the business of the States. But until SCOTUS issues a clear ruling that the 2nd covers carry, not just ownership, we have a problem in a bunch of states. Sure, I can avoid living there, but sometimes it becomes necessary to travel to New Jersey or Hawaii or something. I'd like to be able to carry (legally) everywhere, not just at home.

I completely agree!, this is a good bill for alot of people, but some want to claim it will give the Feds the authority to erode our rights?!? What this bill does, is allow folks to carry in 49 states with a carry license, it doesnt give the Feds any authority, whatsoever, to restrict our right to bear arms at the state level. I should note, if the federal government wants to restrict such rights, then they will do it, regardless of what legislation is already on the table. Like one poster stated, it's all about power for most of our congress, and if they believe they have the power to do away with our rights, then they will do it no questions asked!, just like they showed the world with obamas health care reform garbage! I very much support this bill, it allows me to carry in 12 more states than I can now, and that is a good thing!

 

[Daylen]

I completely agree!, this is a good bill for alot of people, but some want to claim it will give the Feds the authority to erode our rights?!? What this bill does, is allow folks to carry in 49 states with a carry license, it doesnt give the Feds any authority, whatsoever, to restrict our right to bear arms at the state level. I should note, if the federal government wants to restrict such rights, then they will do it, regardless of what legislation is already on the table. Like one poster stated, it's all about power for most of our congress, and if they believe they have the power to do away with our rights, then they will do it no questions asked!, just like they showed the world with obamas health care reform garbage! I very much support this bill, it allows me to carry in 12 more states than I can now, and that is a good thing!

And promotes the idea of needing a permit instead of getting rid of a real impediment to the right to bear arms: the unconstitutional gun free school zones act.

 

[Redbaron007]

I completely agree!, this is a good bill for alot of people, but some want to claim it will give the Feds the authority to erode our rights?!? What this bill does, is allow folks to carry in 49 states with a carry license, it doesnt give the Feds any authority, whatsoever, to restrict our right to bear arms at the state level. I should note, if the federal government wants to restrict such rights, then they will do it, regardless of what legislation is already on the table. Like one poster stated, it's all about power for most of our congress, and if they believe they have the power to do away with our rights, then they will do it no questions asked!, just like they showed the world with obamas health care reform garbage! I very much support this bill, it allows me to carry in 12 more states than I can now, and that is a good thing!

If they were passing this bill under the 2A instead of the Commerce Claus, it would garner support.

Although, this bill doesn't do anything to regulate now, it opens the door, especially under the CC, for later changes. Restricting the gun rights are harder without a bill in place. However, after this gets into place, the door is open for it to be much easier. All we are told by the NRA is they will police this, there were 10-12 changes to this bill that would have killed it, if it passed. The problem is, what happens in 5 years when a more liberal congress is in place....sort of like the one that passed health care. We then have restrictions governed by the feds.

The bill on the surface looks good....but looking at a passed bill down the road, it's very scary. The health care bill is being passed under the CC, where it shouldn't be. Based upon KObama, everything can be regulated through the CC. Look beyond the surface.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

More laws is a bad thing. Expanding the scope of the federal government is a bad thing. Even when it gets us something we want. That's not a hard concept to follow.

People who support this law despite it's many glaring pitfalls are acting selfishly, and not in the interests of freedom.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

In the simplest phraseology I can muster, I don't trust government. None of them. No officials, no agencies, no departments, and no congress, state legislature, or general assembly. I don't trust them to abide by the supreme law of the several states and of the national land to do as they promised in their oath of office. Prudence dictates one to think like this because when one ceases to do so, all manner of evil can sneak in and erupt upon We the People. I only trust the Founders and what they designed. Everything that has come since has tried its best to find ways to circumvent, either covertly or overtly, this grand design in the cause of "we know what's best", when all they have really managed to do is wreak havoc and further remove We the People from our God given and guaranteed rights.

So trust them if you will. I'd rather remain vigilant and hold them at more than arm's length, lest the stink finds its way to my clothes.

I couldn't have said it any better, SB and I used to WORK FOR THEM! I think one of the saddest moments in my life was when I heard about fellow "Coasties" being involved with the illegal seizure and violation of 2A rights after Katrina hit the Gulf coast. I was sick to my stomach. Its probably best that I was retired the week before Katrina or I would have been brought up on charges for disobeying an order. I would have requested a Special Court Martial on the grounds that it was an ILLEGAL order and violated the Constitution. It would have been interesting to be the "test case" in the military for disobeying an UNlawful order given by ___ (Who actually ordered the seizure of personal weapons, anyway?)

I wasn't in any shape to do much of anything when Katrina happened. I had recently had surgery and could barely stand up at my retirement ceremony. Very few of my friends showed up at my retirement because most of them were in the Gulf Coast area helping others. I expected nothing less. If I wasn't being medically retired, I would have been there, too.

 

[rodbender]

(Who actually ordered the seizure of personal weapons, anyway?)

His Honor (tongue in cheek), Mayor "What's His Name". I forgot the clowns name. He ordered the Chief of Police to sieze all firearms. So, it was Mayor Goober through Police Chief Asshat.

 

[Grapeshot]

...snip..
Mayor "What's His Name". I forgot the clowns name. He ordered the Chief of Police to sieze all firearms. So, it was Mayor Goober through Police Chief Asshat.

Mayor Ray Nagin is the one.

 

[ALOC1911]

The guns they were trying to confiscate should've been used for what you have the right to own them for, to defend against a tyrannical gov such as that. I would probably be dead right now had I been there.

 

[rodbender]

Mayor Ray Nagin is the one.

Yeah, that's the guy. Like I said, Mayor Numbnuts.

 

[hammer6]

And promotes the idea of needing a permit instead of getting rid of a real impediment to the right to bear arms: the unconstitutional gun free school zones act.

yeah!

 

[hammer6]

why do we need a law for something that's already constitutionally protected as a right not granted by government? how can the government grant us a right that we already had? the only reason is so that they can later on restrict that "right" that "they" granted.

 

[Redbaron007]

why do we need a law for something that's already constitutionally protected as a right not granted by government? how can the government grant us a right that we already had? the only reason is so that they can later on restrict that "right" that "they" granted.

Because there hasn't been a federal court to say CCW is a 'right' under the 2A.

Your's and my interpretation does count, unless we want to be the test case.

 

[hammer6]

Because there hasn't been a federal court to say CCW is a 'right' under the 2A.

Your's and my interpretation does count, unless we want to be the test case.

the supreme court wasn't created to interpret a law that is written for everyone to see...

yes i understand your point, but i'm just adding to it.

 

[Redbaron007]

the supreme court wasn't created to interpret a law that is written for everyone to see...

yes i understand your point, but i'm just adding to it.

I don't disagree with you.