House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill

[GratefulCitizen]

Wouldn't mind seeing the bill passed, and then ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the feds can't make state gun laws.

[akv]

Originally Posted by bluebb

So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do?

Not often, the Feds's are a tar baby, but more so on Bill of Rights issues. Frankly living in SF, unless your last name is Pelosi, a federal carry permit is a law abiding citizen's best chance for a CCW permit.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by bluebb

So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do?

Blue

If we're going to daydream like that, why not just repeal the 14th and17th amendments?

[longrange1947]

I can see a federal CCW becoming the only one allowed and the price 200.00 a year for the ticket and 500 a year for the mandatory sustainment training and 1000 for the base training.

Think I'm kidding? Take a look at some of the tax proposals for ammo.

That would insure only the Pelosi's would get them.

This is what we all bitch about, the Feds dictating to the states. Sorry, facts are facts.

I would rather see a court order striking down the laws preventing you the citizen from protecting yourselves with firearms at all times. That is the 2d amendment.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by bluebb

So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do?

Blue

Nope.

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Wouldn't mind seeing the bill passed, and then ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the feds can't make state gun laws.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual rights and that trumps States Rights. I know it isn't exactly working that way, but is should. I don't think this Bill will get through the Senate and I'm sure the President will not sign it if it gets through the Senate.

[longrange1947]

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The kink in the armor.

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The kink in the armor.

That is true, and with respect to the 2od Amendment the states are not supposed to limit citizens right to self defense in reality they do limit the 2od.It is a shame there are so many cowards in Congress and they don't clarify the 14 th Amendment to stop illegal immigrants' little snot suckers from being citizens. I do agree with you, I just get there by a different route.

[cat in the hat]

Originally Posted by bluebb

So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do?

Blue

Yes i do believe in the Federal Govt telling the states what to do. that is what the first 8 amendments were for.

state governments cannot take away my right to free speech, assembly, due process etc.... the right to bear arms is also mentioned somewhere in there.

opponents of the second amendment like to focus on the meaning of 'Militia" but never want to address "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED"

i have no problem with background checks. they keep some guns out of the hands of criminals. waiting periods? I can see the logic in them as a cooling off period but still not convinced. as far as how many I want to own, what type, caliber, capacity, that is my business as a responsible owner.

full auto, suppressors explosive projectile, I'l let others argue those.

[Streck-Fu]

Yes i do believe in the Federal Govt telling the states what to do. that is what the first 8 amendments were for.

The Constitution as a whole defines the powers permitted to the federal government by the states and the people. The only reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution is due to the insistence of the Anti-Federalist whom did not trust the new federal government to not increase it power and erode liberty. The Federalists believed it unnecessary to define specific rights untouchable by the federal government thinking that the Constitution was clear enough in defining its powers and that the people would not let the new government become tyrannical.

The first 10 amendments define the most important rights that the federal government may not abridge or infringe upon. They do not 'grant' rights....

state governments cannot take away my right to free speech, assembly, due process etc

The states' powers are defined by their individual constitutions and the state governments that the citizens of those states elect. The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states....hence the reason the 14th and 17th amendments killed the power of states as the primary government over the citizens.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

The Constitution as a whole defines the powers permitted to the federal government by the states and the people. The only reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution is due to the insistence of the Anti-Federalist whom did not trust the new federal government to not increase it power and erode liberty. The Federalists believed it unnecessary to define specific rights untouchable by the federal government thinking that the Constitution was clear enough in defining its powers and that the people would not let the new government become tyrannical.

The first 10 amendments define the most important rights that the federal government may not abridge or infringe upon. They do not 'grant' rights....



The states' powers are defined by their individual constitutions and the state governments that the citizens of those states elect. The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states....hence the reason the 14th and 17th amendments killed the power of states as the primary government over the citizens.

YEAH! What he said!

[cat in the hat]

"The first 10 amendments define the most important rights that the federal government may not abridge or infringe upon. They do not 'grant' rights...."


you are correct that the Constitution does not GRANT rights, it guarantees that they cannot be taken away by state or other lower governments.

Imagine if South Dakota decided that law enforcement officers no longer needed "probable cause" and started searching any car or house they wanted any time they wanted. they CANNOT because the 4th Amendment says they cannot. It is an inherent right.

the 9th and 10th amendment are the keys. For example 'Obamacare" is unconstitutional because it is not specifically "delegated" to the United States. (10th amendment)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The states' powers are defined by their individual constitutions and the state governments that the citizens of those states elect. The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states....hence the reason the 14th and 17th amendments killed the power of states as the primary government over the citizens."

sorry, false. see amendments 9 and 10 again. Other than the powers allowed to the Federal Government, states are free to govern themselves. For example, gambling in Nevada or non smoking laws in California.

I would agree that the Federal Govt has overstepped its authority many times in many ways (obamacare, speed limits, drinking ages....) by threatening to withhold federal money, BUT as I mentioned earlier, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that means that an individual State cannot take away that right.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by cat in the hat

you are correct that the Constitution does not GRANT rights, it guarantees that they cannot be taken away by state or other lower governments.

Respectfully, but you are incorrect. The US Constitution does not define or limit powers to the states. It defined the powers of the Federal government only.
This is why I state the 14th Am through the Due Process Clause (section 1) removed the states as the primary government and is why, now, the states are forced to adhere the Bill of Rights (at least as far as the BS concept of incorporation allows).
If the first 10 amendments always applied to and were enforceable upon the states, why was the 14th Amendment necessary?

Sorry, false. see amendments 9 and 10 again. Other than the powers allowed to the Federal Government, states are free to govern themselves.

Originally Posted by 9th AM

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

[QUOTE10thAM]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.[/QUOTE]

The 9th Am states that the BoR are not the only rights retained by the people.

The 10th clearly states the the people delegate powers to the federal government, not the other way around.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states.

Among other things, you've overlooked Article VI, specifically:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

The US Constitution does not define or limit powers to the states.

Article II enumerates a number of activities that states cannot undertake.

[AMP]

The great state of Indiana, $125.00 = lifetime concealed carry permit. My son just applied for his.