A Trojan Horse for gun rights?

[Father of four]

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

Should be by the people and for the people to decide.

 

[Father of four]

Shouldn't the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution read:

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 unless the federal and or states goverment make laws, rules or regulations that will restrict the free exercise there of.

Instead of

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.

 

[saxon]

It is my understanding that those states will print a license for use in outside states.

Why, oh why, don't you want to be allowed to carry evertwhere?

a licence is permisson to do something that is AGAINST THE LAW are you saying or do you want to agree that the RIGHT to carry is not a RIGHT?

 

[Trlsmn]

The source of this article is given to creating hype panic for their own financial gain. I would question any information coming out of National Association for Gun Rights.

 

[Abiqua]

The source of this article is given to creating hype panic for their own financial gain. I would question any information coming out of National Association for Gun Rights.

^This.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

a licence is permisson to do something that is AGAINST THE LAW are you saying or do you want to agree that the RIGHT to carry is not a RIGHT?

Can you name a single federal case that says that concealed carry is protected by the second amendment? I can't think of one myself. Until that happens, I'll take victory where I find it. It would be like saying that Guadalcanal was bad because by itself it didn't defeat Japan....

 

[saxon]

Can you name a single federal case that says that concealed carry is protected by the second amendment? I can't think of one myself. Until that happens, I'll take victory where I find it. It would be like saying that Guadalcanal was bad because by itself it didn't defeat Japan....

to you it may be a victory but to a state that does not HAVE to have a permit it is not a victory
it would mean they have to admit that it is against the law to carry by signing a permit.


there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits, 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from state or local law enforcement.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

to you it may be a victory but to a state that does not HAVE to have a permit it is not a victory
it would mean they have to admit that it is against the law to carry by signing a permit.

no, it would be saying that the other states are silly....I believe Alaska does issue a permit for their residents for CC outside of Alaska....

Anyway, I guess this is one of those areas where people are going to poo-poo the idea of national recognition because it isn't perfect....oh, well. I thought it was a good idea. I guess it makes more sense to need a permit from every state that will let me have one...that's far easier in the long run.

 

[Misterbill]

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is a specific example of the Congress may "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceeding shall be proved and the effects thereof". It is not in any way regulating the 2nd amendment, just ensuring that "Full faith and credit" is given.

Best look up full faith and credit. that doesn't apply to permits and licenses. It never has, not since the founding.

 

[pokerace]

HOUSE CRIME SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDS
HEARING ON NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL

Click here to vote in this week's poll.

On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
The bill, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) opened the hearing by saying the legislation is needed because state laws on right to carry reciprocity are "confusing, vary widely and can subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to frivolous prosecution." He also argued that permit holders' fundamental Second Amendment rights were at stake, noting that "this legislation recognizes that the right to bear arms does not stop at the state line."

 

[Father of four]

He also argued that permit holders' fundamental Second Amendment rights were at stake, (WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS AS A NON PERMIT HOLDER?) noting that "this legislation recognizes that the right to bear arms does not stop at the state line."(Or JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE OR HAVE NOT ASKED FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED!)

So us Citizens who chose not to ask for permission for a permit are not worthy of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Father of four]

<broken link removed>

The link.

 

[Father of four]

"...that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes."

Why do We The Citizens let the courts (GOVERNMENT) consider how far OUR rights go????????
Shouldn't WEEEEEE have rights that they (GOVERNMENT) cant touch??????

County, City, State and Federal? Or are they the rulers of us?

 

[hermannr]

The purpose of HR 822 is to allow someone that has a permit from state "A" to carry in state "B" (that allows anyone to carry in their state) as if they had a permit from state "B", but they would be required to carry in the manner allowed by the state they were visiting, not their home state.

It does not tell any state what their firearms law must be, just that if the state allows ANY of it's citizens to carry, it must also allow the citizens of other states to carry under the same rules, and also must accept permits from other states in the same manner as their own permits are recognized.

Who will be impacted most? NYC? (and Maybe Chicago and DC) While DC and Chicago do not have any "official" permits, I can bet money that the "favored" can obtain some sort of permission slip and would end up being included. Also, all of the above recognize the out of state LE carry permits, so? The least? Places like TN that already recognize all state permits.

The fun part comes with states like NY that have several levels of permit, including a full concealed carry permit for NYC. All out of state permits would have to be recognized as a full carry permit. So much for NY continuing to protect it's criminals from tourists.

 

[Misterbill]

I can't believe people are still flogging this dead horse.

First, there is zero chance this bill will pass. ZERO. It won't get past the senate and it would be vetoed by Obama.

Secondly, even if it did pass, it's a blatant violation of the tenth amendment. The federal government does not the right to dictate to the states what permits and licenses they must recognize from other states. Period, end of story. For those that think "full faith and credit" applies here, I refer you to PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U. S. 493 (1939) in which the court said:

"...And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

Full faith and credit doesn't supersede the tenth amendment. It was never intended to.

There is no case where the feds tell the states they have to recognize out of state permits. It isn't the case with driver's licenses, for example. Those are compacts entered into among the states, not a federal mandate.

The proposed law would have an injunction against it 5 seconds after it passed and would be stricken down by the courts instantly when it was heard.

There is lots pf precedent on this. I've talked with several lawyers about this and they agree. Including one who is licensed to practice before the Supreme Court, BTW.

There is no unfettered constitutional right at present to carry a concealed weapon. No one cares what we think should be the case. the law as it is does not grant that right. It is unlikely in the extreme that this is going to change on a federal level.

That being the case, why are people who drape themselves in the constitution perfectly happy to crap all over one part of that same constitution because they like the results?

The tenth amendment is extremely important. States rights are extremely important to the functioning of the country as we currently understand it. Any precedent you set for giving the feds more power WILL, you can count on it, be used in ways you really don't like. Cheering on the further decline of the constitution because you happen to like one particular result of that decline is short-sighted in the extreme.

And finally, the sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill are using it as a campaign tool. They are well aware it won't pass and that it wouldn't fly if it did. It's a virtually effortless way to cement support among gun owners. It's political theater, nothing more. -Don't be fooled.

 

[pokerace]

Misterbill

Well stated and I agree with you.(did I say that)

The bill souds some what like obama care...

 

[saxon]

tell that to the confedirate states that had fediral law shoved down thier throat.
oddly enough lincolin first argued the same thing you did and then recanted and forced fediral law onto each state

I can't believe people are still flogging this dead horse.

First, there is zero chance this bill will pass. ZERO. It won't get past the senate and it would be vetoed by Obama.

Secondly, even if it did pass, it's a blatant violation of the tenth amendment. The federal government does not the right to dictate to the states what permits and licenses they must recognize from other states. Period, end of story. For those that think "full faith and credit" applies here, I refer you to PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U. S. 493 (1939) in which the court said:


Full faith and credit doesn't supersede the tenth amendment. It was never intended to.

There is no case where the feds tell the states they have to recognize out of state permits. It isn't the case with driver's licenses, for example. Those are compacts entered into among the states, not a federal mandate.

The proposed law would have an injunction against it 5 seconds after it passed and would be stricken down by the courts instantly when it was heard.

There is lots pf precedent on this. I've talked with several lawyers about this and they agree. Including one who is licensed to practice before the Supreme Court, BTW.

There is no unfettered constitutional right at present to carry a concealed weapon. No one cares what we think should be the case. the law as it is does not grant that right. It is unlikely in the extreme that this is going to change on a federal level.

That being the case, why are people who drape themselves in the constitution perfectly happy to crap all over one part of that same constitution because they like the results?

The tenth amendment is extremely important. States rights are extremely important to the functioning of the country as we currently understand it. Any precedent you set for giving the feds more power WILL, you can count on it, be used in ways you really don't like. Cheering on the further decline of the constitution because you happen to like one particular result of that decline is short-sighted in the extreme.

And finally, the sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill are using it as a campaign tool. They are well aware it won't pass and that it wouldn't fly if it did. It's a virtually effortless way to cement support among gun owners. It's political theater, nothing more. -Don't be fooled.

 

[Misterbill]

tell that to the confedirate states that had fediral law shoved down thier throat.
oddly enough lincolin first argued the same thing you did and then recanted and forced fediral law onto each state

FWIW, the confederate states had BUPKIS shoved down their throat.(I challenge you to give me an executive order or other federal action via fiat prior to the rebellion.)They were outvoted over what territories and states would be slave vs. free. The Emancipation proclamation is a gimme AFAIC because the states were in open rebellion at the time, therefore had shed protections under the constitution.

For you revisionists, read the secession documents of the confederate states. EVERY single one of them cite primarily slavery as the reason for their secession.

Georgia
[Copied by Justin Sanders from the Official Records, Ser IV, vol 1, pp. 81-85.]​

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

(They are referring specifically to Kansas not being voted as a slave holding state by it's citizens.)

<broken link removed>. It makes for some interesting reading. And that reading will forever disabuse you of the notion that the Rebellion against the lawfully constituted government of the USA (also called the Civil War) was about over-arching federal involvement. The Republicans won the election and the writing was on the wall that slavery's time was fast coming to an end, either through federal buying of the slaves and outlawing of the practice, or a Supreme Court challenge. -both were items up for debate at the time.

The Southern slaveholders didn't like it. So they revolted. End of story.

That being said, considering that you can't even spell "confederate," "federal" or "Lincoln," you'll pardon me all to Heck if I don't take your opinion very seriously.

*edited for clarity

 

[saxon]

so sorry i was on the phone trying to text did not know there was a spelling teacher on board

in case you forgot the founding words in the United States Declaration of Independence

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

CITIZENSHIP Republic:
Is defined by a government where authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy (a government where the lower classes of a nation control public affairs without respect to law, precedents, or vested rights). Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress in all areas of arts, science, thought and civil liberties. Republics are the preferred structured base for government throughout Europe and the Americas.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

1) An Executive Officer (Article II of the US Constitution)

(2) A legislative body: (Article I of the US Constitution) with the power of appointment and through the power of legislation can raise revenue and appropriate expenditures in addition to drafting public policy.

(3) A judiciary (Article III of the US Constitution) to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize and enforce individual and sovereign rights.

(4) Expressed and enforced inherent individual rights, (The US Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10; additional Amendments 11-27).

Remove one of the four checks and balances of a Republic and a country begins becoming an Autocracy.

Add another element with personal involvement and individual say and the country slides toward democracy.






Poll Americans and it is surprising how many believe that the United States of America is a Democracy and how many do not know what the constitution says or what our true rights are. Most people we polled for this article didn't realize the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution.
Most people didn't realize the Constitution merely lays out government responsibility and power division, much like an organizational chart for a major corporation. The Amendments later added, specifically the first ten known, our Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers detail our principles and values.

 

[saxon]

also



What is a
Democracy?

Why is it important that American's understand our structure and Constitution? Ignorance can cost and in an era when our Constitution is consistently in the news, it's important that every American and each of our allies understand exactly what it is we stand for and what we represent. Not understanding what we are leaves us open to manipulation and gives others the power to interpret our intentions, values and objectives. Not understanding provides us the excuse to support the objectives and agenda of others without realizing what we are supporting.

If the United States is not a democracy, what is it? The USA was founded as a Citizenship Republic "And to the Republic for which it stands..." Over the years, beginning with the Lincoln Administration of the 1860's ideas of socialism, democracy and increasingly during the 20th Century, fascism have been thrown in. In reality, the United States has not been a pure Republic, that is if you happened to be a white male American, since Lincoln. (Because of slavery, our ethnic cleansing of the American Indians and the absence of Women's rights, we've never been a true republic for all. These policies fall under fascism). The blocking of the cessation of the Southern States, a constitutional and declaration right, ended the pure republic and is the first time a President swept the Constitution aside in favor of an agenda.

Most Americans think the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. In reality this was an after thought, which sounded better than keeping control of the rich agricultural lands and natural resources of the Southern United States. It was fought to prevent the Southern States from ceding the Union, which is why you'll find in the South, the Civil War is often referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression," a correct description. However, history is always written by the winners and freeing the slaves, a noble and righteous outcome of this war, plays much better than preventing the formation of two countries. It also makes us feel better about the bloodiest war in US history. History as we are taught, and reality often contradict each other. This is true for every war, including World War II, Viet Nam and our current endeavors.

This article was originally written in mid 2002 and at that time we were researching political structures based on the actions of a specific US ally claiming to be a democracy. A strong inconsistency became clear between public statements and actions. Actions and Statements contradicted each other daily. We wondered how they could be a "Democracy" or even a "Republic" yet never bother to draft and approve a Constitution in fifty-eight years of existence. This confusion led us to research all government structures to cut through the propaganda being thrown at us. Perhaps we missed something in Civics or Political Science 101? Digging deeper, based upon their laws, actions and policies this ally in fact is not a democracy by any means. Its true government structures is a fascist-military-theocracy for the majority and a theocratic-military-republic for the preferred class fortified with healthy dose of US funded socialism shared by the preferred class of citizens only.

At that time, the United States fulfilled 6 of the 14 points of Fascism and we were a bit concerned but never thought the United States would ever be in danger of heading down the same path. After all, we do have a Constitution and it is pretty clear what we can and cannot do in this country, at least it used to be. January 16th, 2004 with the announcement of CAPPS II and the Trusted Traveler programs, we revisited the definitions, this time looking specifically at the United States and the documentation we've collected since 2001 on policies, laws, and information from sources in the military, government, media and abroad. The picture was not the picture we wanted to see. In 2004 with the Patriot Act and several actions by the Bush Administration in the past 3 years, the United States now fulfills all 14 Points of Fascism. Our staff sat in that room, shocked, stunned and downright furious this was happening right under our noses! We tried to rationalize, we tried to argue but in the end the nauseating truth could not be spun. This article suddenly became very important and the fact that this series on Democracy, Republics and Fascism continues to be the top article on Couples Company since our launch July 1, 2002, telling us a lot of people are beginning to question in the US and Internationally. One third of the readers of this article come from Europe and the Middle East. People are thinking, they're questioning and they are researching. This is the first step to change and returning to the image we see ourselves as, whether our favorite ally or the US itself. Knowing will allow us to change what we are becoming back into what we once were.

Therefore, we've put together this guide to help you understand the differences between government structures and to assist in your understanding of global affairs, the US Constitution and other issues impacting each of us. Once you understand all of this, you'll gain the upper hand in debates. Most people think they know what they are talking about in relationship to our government structure, rules, laws and values. In reality, most people have no clue. Fortunately you are no longer one of them.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

Is defined as government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy or a government where the lower classes of a nation control public affairs without respect to law, precedents, or vested rights. Attitude toward property is communistic, meaning property rights are negated and ownership is by the people or state. In a true democracy the lower classes of a nation control public affairs without respect to law, precedents or vested rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate based upon deliberation, passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences of the action. A true democracy has been shown to results in demogogism, (a country run by the passions and prejudices of the majority) license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.

Democracy is about the people and their power. The power or authority exercised in a democracy is derived directly or indirectly from the represented people in one of two forms: TOP

Direct Democracy:
This is where everyone is given the opportunity to participate in making all policy decisions. In countries and large organizations, direct democracy is rarely utilized because it would be cumbersome and efficient. No decisions would ever be reached.


Representative Democracy:
This approach entails people voting to elect representatives in a free and fair electoral system to make policy for them under a wide range of checks and balances to help ensure leadership accountability. The United States is a Republic which follows the ideals of a Representative Democracy. Our Electoral College is an example of voting via a Representative Democracy. TOP

CRITERIA FOR A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Effective Participation:
All the members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known and an equal influence on what the policy should be.

Voting Equality:
Every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote and all votes must be counted as equal.

Enlightened Understanding:
Each person must have equal and effective opportunities for learning about the relevant policies and their likely consequences.

Control of the Agenda:
All members must have the exclusive opportunity to decide how and if each matter is to be placed on the agenda.

Inclusion:
All members retain the full rights that are implied by the four criteria listed above. TOP

Common misconception:
theocracy & democracy

A democracy cannot be a theocracy. By its very nature a theocracy excludes a segment of society or relegates that segment to subservient status because its faith differs from that declared by the state.

A democracy and theocracy are incompatible, just as fascism and democracy, monarchy and democracy, dictatorship and democracy are also incompatible. A theocracy may use some facets of democracy, but the primary requirement of equal inclusion for all without prejudice can never be attained under a state religious rule.