"House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity"

where does the Constitution say the Federal government has the right to force states to recognize concealed carry privileges from folks who come from states that don't require a concealed carry permit?

 

You only care about it when it suits you.

 

Article one.

The same place that gave Congress the power to force us all to buy health insurance or face IRS theft.

 

The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to levy taxes.

nowhere does it say anything about gun laws.

 

The feds forcing gay marriage down the throats of the states that dont want it is very much the same situation. It may actually have less legal standing than this does because marriage is simply a tax and estate planning tool while bearing arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

I guess that makes me a Conservative.

 

That's illegal. I don't think driver's licenses should be reciprocal.

 

So basically the 14th amendment was useful for gay marriage but now that its being used to extend gun rights all of a sudden the 14th amendment is bad?

 

It surprises you that a liberal speaks differently out the opposite sides of his mouth?

 

Not true, possible in dozen or more gun states, N Carolina and Florida for example, and driver licenses, the GOP defense, are for autos, whose purpose is transportation, usually the means one uses to cross borders, what is guns purpose?and why are they necessary to cross state lines?

 

Irrelevant, no one is arguing applying an Amendment, and States banning conceal weapons aren't breaking any laws

 

I love the hypocrisy of all these libs decrying the death of the 10th Amendment! It was your ancestral 'Führer', Abraham Lincoln who put the 10th Amendment "down the drain".

BUT, take a look at what the 10th Amendment DOES say (emphasis added by myself):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (meaning the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The thing libs keep conveniently forgetting is that the Right to Bear Arms IS part of the Constitution -- the very same 2nd Amendment!

Synopsis:

The Right to Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED -- 2nd Amendment!

The states that voted to leave the United States prior to the Civil War had the right to do so, because secession was not (NOT) prohibited by the Constitution, and the issue was therefore "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", who voted to leave!

Are we clear on this now?

. "I didn't invent 'situation-ethics'... but I did PERFECT it, in spite of there being a 'Constitution'...."

 

Sounds good, got the picture and all again, but still wrong

Don't know why conservatives refuse to accept the FACT that Constitutional rights are NOT ABSOLUTE

When you regurgitate the last phrase of the Second Amendment it does not mean that "right" is absolute all the time everywhere in the United States, FACT, you can even read Scalia, he warned against thinking this way in his opinion in the Heller State

States can formulate State gun restrictions, totally constitutionally legal

 

Effective self-defense in the event of a lethal right. Unlike cars, that is a fundamental civil right in this nation.

I'm for stripping the taxpayer funded armed details for every politician the opposes my right to use arms in self defense.

 

The 10th amendments is one of the lost parts of the Constitution that like all lost things can be quickly rediscovered.

It states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

It was considered by many members as a prerequisite of ratification.

In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system of freedom.

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.

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

In 2012, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, held that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as the ACA or Obamacare) improperly coerced the States to expand Medicaid. He classified the ACA's language as coercive because it effectively forced States to join the federal program by conditioning the continued provision of Medicaid funds on States agreeing to materially alter Medicaid eligibility to include all individuals who fell below 133% of the poverty line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Of course any state that does not allow an honest adult citizen to carry at least a 200 year old style flintlock or wheelock pistol on their person in most public areas ---is in direct opposition to the very letter of the law and day to day reality of the 2nd Amendment.

Where did you learn about the 2nd Amendment? The 8th grade?

 

as long as a state doesn't pass laws or regulations that infringes on it residences constitutional rights they can pass any law or regulation they want
so tell me what part of "Shall not be infringed" written at the end on the second amendment do you not understand

 

Effective self-defense against a lethal attack.

 

True, and the First Amendment only covers fixed type printing.

 

As a practical example in the assertion of states' rights to protect the interests of their citizens against Big Government intrusion, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that achieves a relatively low rate of firearm fatalities (3.0 per 100,000) by sensible measures such as not permitting "concealed carry" could be forced to emulate more permissive states with far higher rates of gun killings (e.g., Alaska: 23.4, Mississippi: 19.6, Missouri: 18.1.)

Even the most avid of gun fanciers should be able to grasp the preference for not having the Feds impose liberal gun policy upon states that have a far lower rate of gun carnage.

(Of course, no Constitutional amendment is absolute, and such demonstrably effective measures are entirely appropriate wherever the people of any state so determine.)

 

Don't we have to use the same spelling of words and use the same phrasing as the founders did?

i never understood the Democrats desire to restrict us to very very old weapons.

 

Fire extinguishers is a bad example. In fact they are not mandatory in some commercial establishments any more. I know of one case where many people died due to the attempts to put out a simple fire using a fire extinguisher. The event was described by a fire officer teacher when I was receiving training to become a fire safety officer at my care home. If I remember rightly the fire occurred in a hotel. Instead of guests evacuating the hotel they stopped and watched as one person attempted to put out the fire. Unfortunately one extinguisher was not enough so he got another one at which time the fire got bigger - many were then trapped by the expanding fire and died

 

It's a federal *******n law been on the books since 1968

 

Yea you restore your rights and appear before a judge, who decides

 

It's not a bad example. My kitchen fire extinguisher saved me once already.

Having a piece of emergency gear doesn't guarantee victory, but it improves your odds.

Having a fire extinguisher is better than not having one, regardless of this one guys bad decision.