Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 1637014" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>H.R. 822 is unconstitutional. The NRA-ILA Fact Sheet, available <a href="http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003" target="_blank">here,</a> in the very first sentence, includes all the information needed to show the unconstitutionality where it says:</p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>"H.R. 822, ... would allow ...</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>No law need be written, considered, or passed under the guise such law is necessary to allow We the People to exercise an inalienable right. It is an usurpation of power by ANY government to assume it has legitimate power to do so, under any pretense. The very title of this bill is oxymoronic. Why do we need an Act of Congress to exercise a right?</p><p></p><p>This is a bill from Congress that incorporates unconstitutional law from most of the several states that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those states' laws require people to obtain a permit or license to carry a firearm(or other arms in some states) either concealed, open or both, contrary to a Supreme Law of the Land; specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.</p><p></p><p>Those incorporated state's laws are all contrary to the first finding in the list of Congress's findings:</p><p></p><p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>"(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense."</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>This bill proposes law that is contrary to Congress's third finding:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>"(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." </em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed Congress does have that power. However, nothing in this bill protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. To the contrary, as stated previously, this bill would incorporate existing unconstitutional state law that makes it necessary for an individual to acquire a permit or license to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise. </p><p></p><p>This bill, if it were to become law, will amount to recognition by Congress that all the unconstitutional state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are legitimate.</p><p></p><p>This bill, if enacted, already contains all the necessary verbiage for the Federal Government to create federal standards for licensing. The proposed new section 'Sec. 926D.(a), contains the following:</p><p></p><p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>"..., a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, ..." </em></p><p></p><p></p><p>All Congress would need to do is expand that Federal law, such as has been done in the passage of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that included the Lautenberg Amendment that added persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse, to the list of prohibited persons.</p><p></p><p>This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.</p><p></p><p>I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.</p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 1637014, member: 745"] H.R. 822 is unconstitutional. The NRA-ILA Fact Sheet, available [url=http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003]here,[/url] in the very first sentence, includes all the information needed to show the unconstitutionality where it says: [indent][i]"H.R. 822, ... would allow ...[/i][/indent] No law need be written, considered, or passed under the guise such law is necessary to allow We the People to exercise an inalienable right. It is an usurpation of power by ANY government to assume it has legitimate power to do so, under any pretense. The very title of this bill is oxymoronic. Why do we need an Act of Congress to exercise a right? This is a bill from Congress that incorporates unconstitutional law from most of the several states that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those states' laws require people to obtain a permit or license to carry a firearm(or other arms in some states) either concealed, open or both, contrary to a Supreme Law of the Land; specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. Those incorporated state's laws are all contrary to the first finding in the list of Congress's findings: [indent][i]"(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense."[/i][/indent] This bill proposes law that is contrary to Congress's third finding: [indent][i]"(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." [/i][/indent] Indeed Congress does have that power. However, nothing in this bill protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. To the contrary, as stated previously, this bill would incorporate existing unconstitutional state law that makes it necessary for an individual to acquire a permit or license to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise. This bill, if it were to become law, will amount to recognition by Congress that all the unconstitutional state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are legitimate. This bill, if enacted, already contains all the necessary verbiage for the Federal Government to create federal standards for licensing. The proposed new section 'Sec. 926D.(a), contains the following: [indent][i]"..., a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, ..." [/i][/indent] All Congress would need to do is expand that Federal law, such as has been done in the passage of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that included the Lautenberg Amendment that added persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse, to the list of prohibited persons. This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon. I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA. Woody [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom