Senate rejects concealed gun law

It's not a loss for gun rights, it's a victory for states' rights.

States don't have rights, they have powers.

This is a win for Gun Rights also as this would have passed if it had not been for the Democrats requirement to archive a Veto Free vote total, which is why it needed 60 instead of a majority vote.

Stupid Gun banner Feinstein is trying to spin it like the anti-gunners had some kind of victory, since when can you call 39% of the vote a victory?

The NRA has harmed the rights to keep and bear arms.

What has the NRA done to RESCIND ANY UNconstitutional laws?
No CCW BS, that is just MORE infringement.
No laws with a built in "expiration date."
No "fight for this, help with that" but RESCIND.
Can you name even one law.

P.S.
Where would we be without the NRA?

PROBABLY BETTER OFF.

MILLIONS of gun owners would not have sent their dollars into a group that they THOUGHT were fighting FOR their gun rights, who in reality were stabbing them in the back. Instead, they might have been fighting the fight themselves. Granted, there was (and always will be) APATHY involved. But if people had not been complacent (because they sent their money in, and did NOTHING else) they quite possibly would/could have been more ACTIVE in the fight. Rather than the SINGLE voice of the NRA, MILLIONS of emails, phone calls, letters, could/would have had a more profound impact.

look to a "no compromise" gROUP Gun Owners of America

Boomer215 wrote:

States don't have rights, they have powers.

In the case of New York they have obscene powers and have literally divided us into two seperate and unequal states. New York City and the surrounding suburbs in Westchester County and Long Island have a stranglehold on the rest of the state politically. Laws are passed and the Upstate area gets left behind on monies spent. The existing gun laws in New York are the result of the politicians in NYC not the part of the state I live in.

Boomer215 wrote:

States don't have rights, they have powers.

I was using the term as it is commonly used and you know that. I guess you didn't have an actual point to make.

AmmoLand wrote:

This is a win for Gun Rights also as this would have passed if it had not been for the Democrats requirement to archive a Veto Free vote total, which is why it needed 60 instead of a majority vote.
Stupid Gun banner Feinstein is trying to spin it like the anti-gunners had some kind of victory, since when can you call 39% of the vote a victory?

Why is it anti-gun to allow states to make their own CCW rules? Do you feel that marriage law should be automatically universal? I doubt it.

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
I was using the term as it is commonly used and you know that. I guess you didn't have an actual point to make.

Actually you may want to temper your remarks as Boomer damn well knows what he is talking about when all too many people come in here confusing rights with powers. Maybe that wasn't your intention but I would suggest you review a good share of Boomer's posts in the gun forums to see where he stands...and it IS on solid ground.

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it anti-gun to allow states to make their own CCW rules? Do you feel that marriage law should be automatically universal? I doubt it.

Personally, I've got no issue with your states rights (powers) argument.
But if you don't want the US Constitution to be the document which protects your right, and think the States should write their own gun laws, you'll be using your state constitution to do it.

I can live with that as the right, at the time that Pennsylvania's Constitution was written, had no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms.

And the protection afforded the right in the Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 21- Right to Bear Arms:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
AND
Article 1, Section 25- Reservation of Powers in The People-
“To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.”

Floridians can live with-
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."

And people in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, etc. can just be screwed as their State Constitutions contain no provision to protect a right to keep and bear arms.

Sound good to you?

Law wrote:

<quoted text>Actually you may want to temper your remarks as Boomer damn well knows what he is talking about when all too many people come in here confusing rights with powers. Maybe that wasn't your intention but I would suggest you review a good share of Boomer's posts in the gun forums to see where he stands...and it IS on solid ground.

Thanks, Law. Boomer was arguing semantics instead of addressing the issue. He's technically correct, but was merely trying to bully in an apparent effort to blur the issue.

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I've got no issue with your states rights (powers) argument.
But if you don't want the US Constitution to be the document which protects your right, and think the States should write their own gun laws, you'll be using your state constitution to do it.
I can live with that as the right, at the time that Pennsylvania's Constitution was written, had no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms.
And the protection afforded the right in the Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 21- Right to Bear Arms:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
AND
Article 1, Section 25- Reservation of Powers in The People-
“To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.”
Floridians can live with-
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
And people in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, etc. can just be screwed as their State Constitutions contain no provision to protect a right to keep and bear arms.
Sound good to you?

Yes.(Sorry to use so few words to make my point.)

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, Law. Boomer was arguing semantics instead of addressing the issue. He's technically correct, but was merely trying to bully in an apparent effort to blur the issue.

The anti gun crowd does a fine job of blurring the issue without any help.
Words matter.

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it anti-gun to allow states to make their own CCW rules? Do you feel that marriage law should be automatically universal? I doubt it.

Well, no one said that hypocrisy wasn't universal.
.
The fact remains: The RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
.
And insofar as marriage is concerned, that is being used as a 'wedge issue' to further cloud the matter of individual rights.
.
What I mean to say is just this: SOME people can't see past their own nostrils when minding the PRIVATE affairs of others.
.
If they aren't busy moralizing over one thing, they are busy using their religion —or lack thereof— as a weapon against yet others.
.
REMINDER:
—————
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
.
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
—————

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
The anti gun crowd does a fine job of blurring the issue without any help.
Words matter.

Words like "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia?" (And yes, I am an avid gun owner.) Let's stick to facts and issues.

We live in a federated republic. Individuals are free to work to modify laws, amend state constitutions, move about, disagree and differ. Historically, except in VERY rare cases, the courts have given the states latitude. If we start to change that, be prepared for federal laws regarding gay marriage, textbook content, legal and medical regulation, and on and on.

The Senate, in a rare display of collective intelligence, knew better than to rock the boat. It would have precipitated state/federal litigation that would most likely have resulted in broad new centralized powers. Not something I am prepared to deal with.

Sound good to you?

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Words like "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia?" (And yes, I am an avid gun owner.) Let's stick to facts and issues.
We live in a federated republic. Individuals are free to work to modify laws, amend state constitutions, move about, disagree and differ. Historically, except in VERY rare cases, the courts have given the states latitude. If we start to change that, be prepared for federal laws regarding gay marriage, textbook content, legal and medical regulation, and on and on.
The Senate, in a rare display of collective intelligence, knew better than to rock the boat. It would have precipitated state/federal litigation that would most likely have resulted in broad new centralized powers. Not something I am prepared to deal with.
Sound good to you?

Your argument is not compelling enough.
.
The fact is that the proposed law was a push in the right direction.
.
There were no new state requirements, and even the good citizens of the states of Vermont and Alaska would be able to exercise their rights WITHOUT having to possess a piece of nanny-state paper.
.
Gee, imagine that: A Vermonter actually being able to carry a concealed arm into the state of Noo Yawk and NOT be put upon by the freaks in cop uniforms or their masters.
.
ULTIMATELY, what ~would~ have resulted —if you'd had the perspicacity to comprehend the matter— would be that NO state would have considered the need to issue whatever nanny-state piece of paper.
.
You know: Just like it used to be back in the Founder's days.

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, Law. Boomer was arguing semantics instead of addressing the issue. He's technically correct, but was merely trying to bully in an apparent effort to blur the issue.

No Andrew, once again you got it wrong. He doesn't bully.

Andrew wrote:

It's not a loss for gun rights, it's a victory for states' rights.

Its a victory for idiots

Funny how no one talks about "state rights" when one state is forced to accept another's state driver's license or marriage license.

Granted a doctor is not allowed to practice in CA if "licensed" in FL.

And the same goes for a lawyer.

But if either "practices" in another state under certain circumstances... it appears to be allowed and the state accepts their credentials "prima facie" so again...

Why is it that a state ID -- like a CDL license from FL -- is accepted by the state when they stop a truck driver in all others states... but another state ID is not acceptable?

From what I understand... this would NOT have forced NY to accept FL laws...

If I go "armed" in NY... I would have to follow NY law.

So... how does that infringe on state law again?

Here is more BS about "state law" and such.

MA state law about marriage:

Chapter 207: Section 11. Non-residents; marriages contrary to laws of domiciled state
No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void

Chapter 207: Section 10. Foreign marriages; validity
Section 10. If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this commonwealth is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this commonwealth and goes into another jurisdiction and there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this commonwealth, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this commonwealth with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been entered into in this commonwealth.
===
Now the way I interpret the above:

The first says that your "legal" marriage in MA is void if you cannot do it legally in your "home" state -- BUT they ignore that if it's a gay marriage.

The 2nd one says that they do NOT accept another state's marriage IF it is illegal in MA.

What is illegal in MA?

Chapter 207: Section 1. Marriage of man to certain relatives
No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister.

I cannot see how somebody could argue "hypocrite" on the CCW reciprocity and then argue that gay marriage is OK (which I have seen a few do so with this subject).

Accept my DL and I MUST follow state laws.

CDL is another good example.

Does CA accept vehicles with other state plates?

The standards are TOTALLY different.

For some marriages in MA... they do appear to be breaking their own statute laws.

If I follow MA CCW and related guns laws if I were to visit them using an out-of-state CCW permit... what "laws" would I be breaking again?

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Words like "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia?" (And yes, I am an avid gun owner.) Let's stick to facts and issues.
We live in a federated republic. Individuals are free to work to modify laws, amend state constitutions, move about, disagree and differ. Historically, except in VERY rare cases, the courts have given the states latitude. If we start to change that, be prepared for federal laws regarding gay marriage, textbook content, legal and medical regulation, and on and on.
The Senate, in a rare display of collective intelligence, knew better than to rock the boat. It would have precipitated state/federal litigation that would most likely have resulted in broad new centralized powers. Not something I am prepared to deal with.
Sound good to you?

The reason it's not a "States Rights" issue is that enacting such legislation is one of the enumerated POWERS of Congress.
The Constitution,Article. IV, Section. 1:

"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."

And as Article. IV, Section. 1 was in the Constitution when Florida sought to be admitted to the "federated republic" in 1845, any complaints you have about the law usurping states powers or violating "States Rights" are not valid.

The law would have required each state that issues conceald carry permits to recognize the permits of another state.
The States in which conceald carry is not legal would not have been affected.