Posted on 11/12/2016 3:09:53 AM PST by BradtotheBone
“When and how you carry outside is a matter that is entirely within the power of a state to regulate.”
Prohibiting the right to keep and bear arms is not a matter for states to regulate just because someone crosses a state line. Other aspects, perhaps, but not that.
To frame it from another angle, extend your argument to freedom of speech or religion and tell me how that would be ok?
“The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep arms. When and how you carry outside is a matter that is entirely within the power of a state to regulate.”
What you are saying it is entirely proper for one state to prohibit carrying a firearm, and a bordering state to require carrying a firearm.
I LOVE THIS!!!!
In my state you can’t get concealed carry unless a stalker is visible in your bushes and has written threatening letters using cut out newspaper letters. (Yes, CA)
My son’s college went on lock down recently due to a shooter. I’d have felt so much better had he, a good shot, been carrying.
If Trump can get this through I’d be so happy.
Bush was a sneaky globalist loser. I believe his Christianity was genuine. But he was no constitutionalist.
“A federal law that says concealed carry must be recognized by all states can at some future date be replaced by a law saying concealed carry cannot be recognized across state lines. That’s why concealed carry is, and must be, a state issue and any such law passed by Congress should be overturned on 10th Amendment grounds.”
Yes. This idea seems like a bad precedent to set. Isn’t it up to the States, under the 10th Amendment, to set the laws around carrying firearms? Do we really want the Federal Government delving very far into these decisions?
With all due respect for those needing to know, I’d like to take some words from the US Constitution, Amendment V. Those words are ... “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ... “
Go Trump !!!
Make this a top 100-day goal! Remove all state, county, and city-level gun laws. Establish national recognition of gun laws and recognition of CCW permits. I like constitutional-carry but suspect that might be too far for some states. Besides, asking for a standard minimum/maximum of training, verify not a felon, makes sense. Got to make sure BS like what DC is trying, gets dumped real quick. Let me use my NV and UT CCW on visits to DC.
My point is women may not have supported inclusion of the 2nd Amendment if they had had the vote at our founding.
Even so, they have it now, so don’t expect them to treat a founding principal they had nothing to do with enshrining like it was written by Moses coming down off the mountain.
Bookmark
Those in government are literally denying millions of law abiding American citizens safety and self protection that they themselves demand and expect.
I can't stand this level of evil arrogance and control.
Spit!*
Amazing!
I don’t really understand this issue so I am asking an honest question just to know: Why should silencers be unlimited? I’m trying to think of a legal reason for using silencers. Maybe I have watched too many crime shows.
Women need guns more than men. We walk around with little children to protect, we are smaller and weaker, etc.
You’ll get no argument from me on that account.
Are you kidding?
Prolonged exposure to gunfire is not only uncomfortable, but damaging to your hearing.
Reality triumphs.
I was just asking a dumb question.
If silencers make gun noise diminish for every shot, why don’t shooting ranges have them? Are they legal anywhere? I do not know if silencers harm the weapon over time, or have a limited use value (like only good for a certain number of fires), how much they cost, etc.
I honestly don’t know these things. Sorry.
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.