Yeager - STOP National Concealed Carry!

[jamil]

Federalism concentrated at the state and local level did not work. It lasted six years and the people that wanted it that way admitted it did not work. How often do the people in the position of authority and the creation of a government admit that? How bad must it have been? Yet people still long for it.

Just to clarify. This almost sounds like you're saying "federalism" didn't work. We have a federal government now. It is the Articles of Federation that didn't work. The AoC did not give enough power to the federal government, so states were operating more like sovereign nations than like subordinate states to a superior government. We are still a federalist system. The power the constitution gives to the federal government, however, is limited to the enumerated powers. In theory at least.

Seems the courts really love to interpret the commerce clause to excuse any ruling they want to degree.

 

[Coach]

Just to clarify. This almost sounds like you're saying "federalism" didn't work. We have a federal government now. It is the Articles of Federation that didn't work. The AoC did not give enough power to the federal government, so states were operating more like sovereign nations than like subordinate states to a superior government. We are still a federalist system. The power the constitution gives to the federal government, however, is limited to the enumerated powers. In theory at least.

Seems the courts really love to interpret the commerce clause to excuse any ruling they want to degree.

I did not say that in any way. I am well aware of what federalism is and what we have now. The AOC did not work because of where the preponderance of power lay. (at the state level) The version of federalism we have now may be imperfect but it works many times better than the AOC. The fact that the system has not been replaced is evidence in support of this conclusion.

The Supremacy Clause make it plain and simple where the power is concentrated now. The Supremacy Clause is not an enumerated power and it empowers Congress and therefore the national level of government. No theory involved.

 

[ljk]

What is "National Concealed Carry"?

Does it mean national reciprocity?

 

[IndyTom]

What is "National Concealed Carry"?

Does it mean national reciprocity?

As in a federal license or right (other than 2A) to carry as opposed to states recognizing each state's right to carry (whether through license or right to carry).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is "National Concealed Carry"?

Does it mean national reciprocity?

Yes, Yeager has some twisted gun shoppe version of "National Concealed Carry" in his mind.

Why National Reciprocity matters: NYC to Gun-Owning Tourists: Drop Dead - Reason.com

 

[HoughMade]

Based upon this, one could accurately say that Yeager places your fundamental right to keep and bear arms at a lower level of importance than "states' rights". Hmm. A fundamental right that's less worthy of protection than the notion of "states' rights". It seems like I've heard something about something like that somewhere.

 

[ATM]

What is "National Concealed Carry"?

Does it mean national reciprocity?

I'm fairly certain it refers to a new law that would criminalize open carry everywhere in the U.S. ...even in those states that don't currently infringe on that natural right.

At least that's what I've been telling folks at the local gun shoppe.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm fairly certain it refers to a new law that would criminalize open carry everywhere in the U.S. ...even in those states that don't currently infringe on that natural right.

At least that's what I've been telling folks at the local gun shoppe.

My head:

 

[T.Lex]

BTW - breaking news on the National Reciprocity legislation (HR 38 and S446): stuck in committee since January and February, respectively.

 

[Mark 1911]

IMHO, "Yeager" is synonymous for "do not even bother reading".

 

[jamil]

Based upon this, one could accurately say that Yeager places your fundamental right to keep and bear arms at a lower level of importance than "states' rights". Hmm. A fundamental right that's less worthy of protection than the notion of "states' rights". It seems like I've heard something about something like that somewhere.

There's a clear logical disconnect in the thinking of absolute federalism. It's saying that states within the United States may infringe on any rights, and that the federal government has no authority to place any boundaries at all. Among reasonable people it's more of a matter of finding a balance for where you draw the line. It seems reasonable for a nation founded on the principles of self-governance and personal freedom, to require states adhere to at least those things.

 

[KLB]

BTW - breaking news on the National Reciprocity legislation (HR 38 and S446): stuck in committee since January and February, respectively.

What a surprise! Just like the HUSH and similar bills.

 

[Trigger Time]

Based upon this, one could accurately say that Yeager places your fundamental right to keep and bear arms at a lower level of importance than "states' rights". Hmm. A fundamental right that's less worthy of protection than the notion of "states' rights". It seems like I've heard something about something like that somewhere.

States rights are more important than anything, except what the state's agreed to abide to in the constitution. The problem is the federal government is more inclined to protect someone's right to butt **** than they are the right to keep and bear arms.
There isn't a problem with the supreme law there's a problem with the people who manage and enforce the law. If the government and state governments would follow the contracts they made when they adopted and ratified the constitution then we wouldn't have any problems.
The second amendment and any other rights we have can be take away by the stroke of a pen if the elected representation so chooses. It's a high bar to meet but it's possible to amend the constitution.
That's why we all must be vigilant and involved in who we hand over the keys to liberty to. And we've done a ****ty job because the fox is in the henhouse (congress).
States absolutely do not have the right to restrict guns and who carry them. Any law that does this is illegal and wrong.

Oh and I have no problem with gay rights that's not what I meant above. I simply meant politicians do what's popular rather than what's right. All rights are just as important than the other.

 

[Coach]

There is nothing to prevent states from denying rights in the Constitution. You might look into the doctrine of incorporation and its history and what all has been done over the years there.

What are states rights? Who is the state?

All this states rights clamoring that goes on is mind boggling.

 

[indiucky]

BTW - breaking news on the National Reciprocity legislation (HR 38 and S446): stuck in committee since January and February, respectively.

It's a long journey....Didn't they make you watch this in law school???

[video=youtube;FFroMQlKiag]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag[/video]

 

[rhino]

This topic smells of lawyers and feet.

 

[squirrelhntr]

can't touch this

https://youtu.be/Gixjzzo-rt8

 

[Trigger Time]

There is nothing to prevent states from denying rights in the Constitution. You might look into the doctrine of incorporation and its history and what all has been done over the years there.

What are states rights? Who is the state?

All this states rights clamoring that goes on is mind boggling.

Yes there is it's the court. But yeah what happens when the court rules a state is not abiding by federal rules or laws and the court rules as such? We will soon see with all these sanctuary city and other liberal strongholds. I don't think the outcome is gonna be one they like and may even require federal force

 

[jamil]

This topic smells of lawyers and feet.

Could it be that lawyer's feet just smell worse than regular feet?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This topic smells of lawyers and feet.

You know I wash my feet in your kitchen sink!

I say good day, sir. Good day.