Posted on 10/27/2011 5:03:39 AM PDT by marktwain
Yesterday, H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011," introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed a House Judiciary Committee vote, and thus now goes to the House floor. The bill's prospects there look bright, given the fact that even if 27 of its 245 co-sponsors failed to vote for it, that would still leave it with bipartisan majority support.
This, as one might imagine, has put the anti-self-defense lobby in a state of hysterical outrage. The Brady Campaign, for example, has renamed it the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" (named, perhaps, by the same not very gifted intern who renamed full capacity magazines "assault clips," or the even more ludicrous "Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes"), and has been shrieking (and lying) about it for weeks.
Yesterday, H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011," introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed a House Judiciary Committee vote, and thus now goes to the House floor. The bill's prospects there look bright, given the fact that even if 27 of its 245 co-sponsors failed to vote for it, that would still leave it with bipartisan majority support.
This, as one might imagine, has put the anti-self-defense lobby in a state of hysterical outrage. The Brady Campaign, for example, has renamed it the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" (named, perhaps, by the same not very gifted intern who renamed full capacity magazines "assault clips," or the even more ludicrous "Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes"), and has been shrieking (and lying) about it for weeks. Advertisement
In Brady Campaign Acting President Dennis "What People?" Henigan's latest Huffington Post column, he brings up the "states' rights" (since states have powers, rather than rights, a more accurate term would be "state sovereignty") argument:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Correct, but only until we can take firm control of the Senate next election, just a year away. If we get the right combo: A real conservative for POTUS and a solid conservate majority in BOTH houses of the Congress, we can do so much damage to the antis agenda that it will take them until the tricentenial to get back to square one. They'll all have to move to France with the rest of the surrender monkeys.
Well, here is one of the pratfalls:
Say this legislation passes, the FedGov will have to then put some bureaucratic agency in charge of it...who will it be?
Assume it is the ATFE, what happens if some Admin, or Senate, or more drastically, House, then charges the ATFE with collecting fees/taxes to support the scheme?
Like Class II weapons?
They could make the fees, duly regulated under the Commerce Clause, 1,000 per yr, or more.
Far better to take a Heller v DC approach and to pick off the reluctant/hostile states in court then to stick this under the federal umbrella.
As a side note, please also keep in mind that I believe the system is 100% incapable of fixing itself and that we will need to take up arms to get our Constitutional Republic restored.
Activism and performance and facts, the same way the pro abotion argument was turned on it’s ear, it may seem impossible, but killing babies in buckets of water was acceptable even 10 yrs ago, and that was fully protected by corrupt leadership.
There is no power quite like an idea whose time has come.
>Eh, Handgun Control inc. , may have a point, as much as I do not enjoy saying that, a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.
>Then again, the same people who hypocritically advocate for State Sovereignty on this issue, have no problem tossing that overboard when the issue is something they support.
You are generally correct; however, most of the amendments [in the Bill of Rights] are written in the passive voice which indicates that the actor is irrelevant but the action is.
The sixth, for example, says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[...]”
Therefore any prosecution, whether by federal or by state, should be covered, no?
Likewise, the second says: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The non-general ones specify who is to be bound from doing what; like the first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Oddly enough, what we see in jurisprudence is an inversion of sorts; they use the 14th amendment to justify a doctrine of ‘incorporation’ which, by their usage, is some magical process which transforms the text of the various amendments. For example, though Congress is specifically named in the first amendment, it has been used to justify prohibiting State legislatures from enacting laws as would be prohibited to Congress.
>Actually “slavery” was not abolished. It was merely restricted by legislation. A person can be sentenced to slavery if duly convicted.
Very true.
I think one possible answer to illegal immigration is to make the punishment of conviction slavery, for no more than the [cumulative] time illegally present in the US if greater than one year, but in no wise less than one year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.