Fiscal impact is very important in the legislative process, so I don't fault him on bringing it up when a change in licensing (such as lifetime licenses for veterans) is involved.
Fiscal impact is very important in the legislative process, so I don't fault him on bringing it up when a change in licensing (such as lifetime licenses for veterans) is involved.
why do people always quote the keep and bear arms part, but never the start. I personally feel this is our founding fathers way of saying there needs to be some rules and provisions, but if you follow those rules and provisions then you have the right. I.E., permit, license, ect....
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.
It was already bad and Virgin made it worse. Kill it!
WHEW!! Man trying to keep up with all the updates and #'s of the bills and what to support and what to kill is kinda confusing. I sure hope I haven't made a fool of myself sending the wrong bill #'s to my rep. He's already on the anti bandwagon as when I asked him to support 'open carry' he went off quoting local law enforcement's policy against open carry and he was going to support their policy. Mr Renegar hasn't helped our cause down here at all. Short story what bill are we trying to get thru and what bill do we kill?
You also need to understand language of that time period, as well as the organization of clauses (especially in legalese).
In plain English, the Second Amendment can be read as "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."
Furthermore, Article II Section 2 Clause 1 states that "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"
Article I Section 8 Clauses 15 and 16 grant Congress the following control over the Militia:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The Constitution was adopted without any amendments. The Bill of Rights contains a preamble which does a good job of explaining why the amendments were proposed (my emphasis):
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
This preamble explains quite well why the amendments are worded the way they are. In the case of the Second Amendment, it is written in the form of a declaratory clause followed by a restrictive clause. The declaratory clause states why the Second Amendment is necessary:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
The States viewed a federal militia as a threat to their sovereignty in the union. In their view, the Constitution did not provide a check against an out of control federal militia. The federal militia needed to be subject to some sort of regulation as a check against its use against states that opposed an action or initiative of the federal government. That regulation is found in the restrictive clause of the Second Amendment:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This protection of the right to keep and bear arms for the People of the United States is meant to serve as a regulation against an unchecked federal militia authorized by the United States Constitution. People who believe that the founders meant for government to infringe upon the People's right to keep and bear arms by imposing restrictions such as licensing provisions and ownership prohibitions clearly do not understand the history behind the Second Amendment.
Like a Cuba Libre, Virgin just made it worse.
We should kill this bill with fire.
TL;DR version:
Support SB129 as written.
Support HB1796 ONLY if amended to remove ballot provision. (I'd personally love the amendment that repeals nearly all firearm laws.)
Oppose HB1647 unless Section 1 of the bill is stricken. (I'm only commenting on open carry here. Make your own decision on if you think veterans who chose or were allowed to serve their country should be considered a higher class than other citizens when it comes to the right to carry a firearm for self defense.)
Ahhh ok. Thanks for the info! Keep up the good work as it's hard for some minds to wrap around all the legalese.
With all due respect, by your reasoning, a Constitutional Carry bill or something like I understand SB129 to be, the OSBI could lose a lot of funding because it would keep people from applying for a license for something they could do without one. Therefore, we should consider that economic impact on whether or not the bill is worthy. I am one who does not care one whit about economic impact when it comes to easing my financial burden for excercizing a God given right.
First, economic impact and fiscal impact are two very different things. That said, state government operates based on revenues generated by taxes and fees. When there is a change in revenue, obviously there has to be a change in budgets. Normally, we could get by with an approximate figure and rely on the Rainy Day Fund as a cushion. However, the GOP chose to pillage that savings account to create this year's budget rather than making responsible 20% cuts across the board. Because they also squandered what was still left in there because certain funding sources in the budget never even began to materialize, we don't have that cushion and must now rely on accurate figures.
In a perfect world I'd say "to hell with it, we can't pay you, you, and you starting this week so bye-bye". However, this is the real world. I need real numbers to back up how much I can shrink government.
