I hope it doesn't pass. Federal gov has no business here.
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
- Thread starter soonerwings
- Start Date
Laws like HR 822 do little more than further legitimize the notion that government grants rights. The government of the USA was formed to protect our rights. It does not grant them. It is sad that so many Americans either fail to realize this, were never taught it or worse yet know it but prefer to live under the thumb of a system where government does indeed exist to grant rights.
We don't need HR 822 - the intentions of the authors may well, indeed probably are good. But as it has been said so often and not without cause, "The road to HELL is paved with good intentions".
We don't need HR 822 - the intentions of the authors may well, indeed probably are good. But as it has been said so often and not without cause, "The road to HELL is paved with good intentions".
And this is another reason I refuse to support the NRA.
The email from the National Association For Gun Rights changed my mind about this bill, if GWB was president fine it would probably be safe or he wouldn't sign it. But with floppy ears in there nothing is safe. At face value it sounds great but as Dudley Brown states it is a Trojan Horse and unless the whole administration goes to jail over fast and furious no telling what this bill would look like before it reaches the blood stained fingers of the commie pinko lap boy of Soros in the big house, it is hard to say his name and white house in the same sentence. I have been calling telling them to can the bill until the climate is more favorable, maybe we should all do that. Just my opinion
Tell us how you really feel Sundance, don't sugar coat it.
Tell us how you really feel Sundance, don't sugar coat it.
You know what, I hear that kind of stuff all the time, I refuse to vote because there is no difference between the parties they are both corrupt, well there is a difference, they may both be corrupt, but they are not all corrupt, would you rather live under a corrupt socialist, communist, muslim, okay anything goes type society, or live under a conservative type where a least we have our basic freedoms that we have always had. Neither is perfect, but I will take the conservative each and everytime.
You say you don't support the NRA because they make a few mistakes, but let me tell you, if it wasn't for them we would have all been criminals and gunless or dead a longtime ago, just because you don't always agree with what they do, doesn't mean they never do good things to help fight for your 2nd amendment rights. In this present climate we had better support every group our pocket book will allow or we will be having a bloody revolution to keep our gunrights,and our country, because obama and his demons mean to take our guns and our country as we know it away, how else can they take over this country for their socialistic ideals, if we have weapons to stop them.
One more seat on the Supreme Court of liberal persuasion and the Second Amendment is gone for the forseeable future. The NRA-ILA posts every election who is pro and who is ant- gun as far as the candidates go, who else does that, they also post gun laws for each state, who else does that, they have so much information on their website just for us, now who else does that, so they do more than just make mistakes. They do a lot of good and will continue as long as some of us support them.
You say you don't support the NRA because they make a few mistakes, but let me tell you, if it wasn't for them we would have all been criminals and gunless or dead a longtime ago, just because you don't always agree with what they do, doesn't mean they never do good things to help fight for your 2nd amendment rights. In this present climate we had better support every group our pocket book will allow or we will be having a bloody revolution to keep our gunrights,and our country, because obama and his demons mean to take our guns and our country as we know it away, how else can they take over this country for their socialistic ideals, if we have weapons to stop them.
One more seat on the Supreme Court of liberal persuasion and the Second Amendment is gone for the forseeable future. The NRA-ILA posts every election who is pro and who is ant- gun as far as the candidates go, who else does that, they also post gun laws for each state, who else does that, they have so much information on their website just for us, now who else does that, so they do more than just make mistakes. They do a lot of good and will continue as long as some of us support them.
I think this was directed at me, so I'll respond.
A very strong argument can be made that our natural right to keep and bear arms would be more secure without the involvement of the National Rifle Association in McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010). Why? Because the Supreme Court agreed on something very important, but decided not to address it because it would be inconvenient to do so as it would broaden the scope of McDonald to open the door to the swift overturning of other decisions based on the Slaughter-House precedent that the Court agreed to be fundamentally flawed so much as to merit revisiting. However, the inconvenience of revisiting, and the fact that the briefs filed in the case largely favored the "tried and true" method of incorporation through Due Process, outweighed the flaws in the minds of four of the Justices.
If the NRA truly supported the right to keep and bear arms as being a right protected by the Constitution, they would have pushed hard for Privileges or Immunities.
The Fourteenth Amendment offered us two paths to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Path One is through the Privileges or Immunities clause, which reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (which was proposed as a direct solution to the flawed but established caselaw gutting the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV Section 2). Path Two is through the Due Process clause, which reads "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
The Slaughter-House cases effectively gutted the ability of the Privileges or Immunities clause to provide a path for incorporation of any Rights against the states. In Slaughter-House, the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities clause only applied to those Rights "which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws". Therefore, post-Slaughter-House, you would have to consider the right to keep and bear arms a Right granted by the government rather than a natural right in order to be able to argue for incorporation under the Privileges or Immunities clause. I'm not so sure that most here (including I) would like to take a position in that direction.
However, "Virtually no serious modern scholar-left, right, and center- thinks that this [interpretation] is a plausible reading of the Amendment" (Amar, Substance and Method in the Year 2000, 28 Pepperdine L. Rev. 601, 631, n. 178 (2001), p. 8 of plurality opinion). But even with multiple citations such as the one in the previous sentence, Justice Alito went on to say "We see no need to reconsider that interpretation here. For many decades, the question of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter-House holding."
In other words, while scholars have a consensus that Slaughter-House is extremely flawed and should be revisited, we don't want to touch it. (My thinking is that this may have been a compromise to get Justice Kennedy to vote in favor of incorporation.) To not revisit Slaughter-House is kind of disturbing because Slaughter-House arguably did not directly involve any Right enumerated in the Constitution.
(Read more at http://www.altenhofel.com/blog/mcdonald-rkba-and-privileges-or-immunities-clause)
This leaves Second Amendment incorporation at the mercy of "substantive due process" - the exact thing that those four Justices complain about the most for vagueness. Using the Due Process Clause requires the Court to determine if a right is "fundamental" to "our scheme of ordered liberty." This leaves incorporated rights open to attack from Justices who inject their political views into their opinions (and all of them do).
In over a century of rulings using the Due Process Clause, no consensus has emerged on the correctness and meaning of precedent cases such as Roe v. Wade. This further proves that Second Amendment incorporation will be left open to manipulation going forward, all because the Court "decline[d] to disturb the Slaughter-House holding."
(Read more at http://www.altenhofel.com/blog/originalists-lose-mcdonald-v-chicago)
The NRA stays in business as long as the people believe that the Second Amendment is threatened. Incorporation under Due Process perpetually guarantees that threat. With a few extremely limited exceptions, Privileges or Immunities would have gotten rid of the NRA's chief reason for being in business.
United States v. Marzzarella illustrates this point quite well. The Third Circuit ruled that the federal law barring possession of unmarked firearms as "a longstanding prohibition" allowed by DC v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
Another example of the slippery slope that Due Process has given us is Nordyke v. King. Remember, Nordyke is not about carrying firearms on county property for self defense, but rather displaying firearms for sale on county property (something that has been misrepresented in many places, some intentionally and some unintentionally). When the panel was reaching a conclusion on the validity of the Alameda County ordinance under the incorporated Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit held that, even if the real world consequence of the ordinance was prohibiting firearms for self defense on county property, "the restriction leaves open sufficient alternative avenues for obtaining the good or service" because the gun shows could take place elsewhere.
The NRA has a pattern against the rights protected by the Second Amendment dating back at least to NFA '34. It's not just a few random "mistakes" on the timeline - it's a consistent stance that has the effect of furthering their own existence over the rights that they claim to protect.
H.R. 822 is unconstitutional. The NRA-ILA Fact Sheet, available here, in the very first sentence, includes all the information needed to show the unconstitutionality where it says:
No law need be written, considered, or passed under the guise such law is necessary to allow We the People to exercise an inalienable right. It is an usurpation of power by ANY government to assume it has legitimate power to do so, under any pretense. The very title of this bill is oxymoronic. Why do we need an Act of Congress to exercise a right?
This is a bill from Congress that incorporates unconstitutional law from most of the several states that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those states' laws require people to obtain a permit or license to carry a firearm(or other arms in some states) either concealed, open or both, contrary to a Supreme Law of the Land; specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.
Those incorporated state's laws are all contrary to the first finding in the list of Congress's findings:
This bill proposes law that is contrary to Congress's third finding:
Indeed Congress does have that power. However, nothing in this bill protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. To the contrary, as stated previously, this bill would incorporate existing unconstitutional state law that makes it necessary for an individual to acquire a permit or license to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.
This bill, if it were to become law, will amount to recognition by Congress that all the unconstitutional state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are legitimate.
This bill, if enacted, already contains all the necessary verbiage for the Federal Government to create federal standards for licensing. The proposed new section 'Sec. 926D.(a), contains the following:
All Congress would need to do is expand that Federal law, such as has been done in the passage of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that included the Lautenberg Amendment that added persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse, to the list of prohibited persons.
This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.
I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.
Woody
"H.R. 822, ... would allow ...
No law need be written, considered, or passed under the guise such law is necessary to allow We the People to exercise an inalienable right. It is an usurpation of power by ANY government to assume it has legitimate power to do so, under any pretense. The very title of this bill is oxymoronic. Why do we need an Act of Congress to exercise a right?
This is a bill from Congress that incorporates unconstitutional law from most of the several states that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those states' laws require people to obtain a permit or license to carry a firearm(or other arms in some states) either concealed, open or both, contrary to a Supreme Law of the Land; specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.
Those incorporated state's laws are all contrary to the first finding in the list of Congress's findings:
"(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense."
This bill proposes law that is contrary to Congress's third finding:
"(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
Indeed Congress does have that power. However, nothing in this bill protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. To the contrary, as stated previously, this bill would incorporate existing unconstitutional state law that makes it necessary for an individual to acquire a permit or license to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.
This bill, if it were to become law, will amount to recognition by Congress that all the unconstitutional state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are legitimate.
This bill, if enacted, already contains all the necessary verbiage for the Federal Government to create federal standards for licensing. The proposed new section 'Sec. 926D.(a), contains the following:
"..., a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, ..."
All Congress would need to do is expand that Federal law, such as has been done in the passage of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that included the Lautenberg Amendment that added persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse, to the list of prohibited persons.
This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.
I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.
Woody
What efforts?
Veggie Meat said:
Point taken.
I was thinking of Heller and McDonald, I guess.
Woody
Similar threads
