PDA

View Full Version : Response I Received From Sen Feinstein re: H.R. 822


One78Shovel
02-29-2012, 2:29 PM
Should be no surprise that I was not surprised.

I wrote to both Sen Boxer and Sen Feinstien urging them to demand H.R. 822 be acted upon in the Senate as it has not been taken up for vote.

-178S

================================================== ===
Dear Mr. xxxxxx

I received your letter and want to thank you for contacting me regarding concealed weapons license reciprocity. I respect your opinion on this matter, and I welcome the opportunity to share my point of view.

On February 28, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822), which would effectively allow the concealed carry gun laws of one state to nullify restrictions on concealed carry in other states. This bill would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states – including states with less restrictive gun control laws. To date, no companion legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate.

I do not support concealed weapons license reciprocity. It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit.

Last Congress, Senator John Thune (R-SD) offered legislation similar to the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" as an amendment to the "National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010" (S. 1390). I opposed the measure, and the amendment failed by a vote of 58 to 39 because it did not receive the required 60 votes needed to pass.

Please know that while concealed weapons reciprocity may be an issue on which we disagree, I respect your opinion and I am sure that there will be other issues on which we will find common ground.

I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

wamphyri13
02-29-2012, 2:49 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that her opinion doesn't matter, that as an agent of the people, she should do as the PEOPLE want, not what she wants. In a perfect world, that's how it's supposed to be. In the real world, how much cash have you got? Hell, if Davy Jones can die of a heart attack at 66, how much time could she have left?
Ryan

glockman19
02-29-2012, 2:50 PM
I got the same lame response from Fienstein and NO response from Boxer.

NeenachGuy
02-29-2012, 2:54 PM
Of course these Senators don't care what we think. They're going to be re-elected regardless of what we think, because there are too many suckers in the California electorate that buy into their progressive hogwash.

Petra
02-29-2012, 3:02 PM
I think what really bothers me about the response is this bit:

It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York.

The LA basin, SF Bay area, and Sacramento are not the entirety of the state of California... we have very large, sparsely populated rural areas as well.

CrazyPhuD
02-29-2012, 3:05 PM
Someone might want to remind her about Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. Separate but unequal is not a valid treatment under the law. The fact the rural CA is treated differently than urban CA is likely a violation of the 14th.

OldShooter32
02-29-2012, 3:15 PM
The worst part is that YOU paid the postage to send that bag o crap back to you.

clutchy
02-29-2012, 3:16 PM
it's really a state's rights issue and she's partially correct.

I don't agree with her stance on guns but I do believe in state's rights. If i had to choose i'd pick state's rights any day because it's a closer more accountable form of governance.

at the same time we live in a representative democracy so once she represents us she can do whatever she wants.


I still can't believe boxer was reelected... i can't stand the mindless union thugs in this state.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 3:16 PM
These politicians are effectively unassailable and entrenched. There are better ways of using your time and enthusiasm, IMHO.

fd15k
02-29-2012, 3:22 PM
it's really a state's rights issue and she's partially correct.

I don't agree with her stance on guns but I do believe in state's rights. If i had to choose i'd pick state's rights any day because it's a closer more accountable form of governance.

at the same time we live in a representative democracy so once she represents us she can do whatever she wants.


I still can't believe boxer was reelected... i can't stand the mindless union thugs in this state.

States have powers, not rights. And such powers can not trump on the rights of the citizens.

Connor P Price
02-29-2012, 3:25 PM
it's really a state's rights issue and she's partially correct.

I don't agree with her stance on guns but I do believe in state's rights. If i had to choose i'd pick state's rights any day because it's a closer more accountable form of governance.

at the same time we live in a representative democracy so once she represents us she can do whatever she wants.


I still can't believe boxer was reelected... i can't stand the mindless union thugs in this state.

I don't find this to be a states rights issue even remotely. Its an individual rights issue. States have no right to trample on the rights of the people and there is no legitimate reason that ones right to defend themselves from violent attack should end at a state border.

vantec08
02-29-2012, 3:34 PM
States right issue??? so, is the 1st amendment a states rights issue? the 4th? the 14th?? WTF??

One78Shovel
02-29-2012, 4:12 PM
I want to ask 'What makes urban areas any different than rural areas when defending oneself from grave injury?' And what seperates California and New York from the remaining 48 states?

Does not compute.

-178S

TWoods450
02-29-2012, 4:21 PM
I got the same response from george miller.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

CEDaytonaRydr
02-29-2012, 4:27 PM
The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states...

Oh no, she didn't... :mad:

Really? She is advocating "state's rights"..? That idiot has a lot of nerve... :rolleyes:

Dhena81
02-29-2012, 4:29 PM
What she's really saying is I got mine your not on my level.

CCWFacts
02-29-2012, 4:32 PM
Of course these Senators don't care what we think. They're going to be re-elected regardless of what we think,

Exactly. So long as they don't do anything to anger SEIU they will win elections as long as they are breathing.

I'm sure that Carly Fiorina or maybe even Peter Thiel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel) might be running against Barbara Boxer, and it won't matter if they spend a billion dollars and give everyone a pony, they will lose.

Colt-45
02-29-2012, 4:33 PM
it's really a state's rights issue and she's partially correct.

I don't agree with her stance on guns but I do believe in state's rights. If i had to choose i'd pick state's rights any day because it's a closer more accountable form of governance.

at the same time we live in a representative democracy so once she represents us she can do whatever she wants.


I'm all for states rights as long as I wasn't living in CA,HI,NJ,NY,MA. I pick states rights as long as I didn't live in any of those states.

Drivedabizness
02-29-2012, 4:36 PM
Should be no surprise that I was not surprised.

I wrote to both Sen Boxer and Sen Feinstien urging them to demand H.R. 822 be acted upon in the Senate as it has not been taken up for vote.

-178S

================================================== ===
Dear Mr. xxxxxx

I received your letter and want to thank you for contacting me regarding concealed weapons license reciprocity. I respect your opinion on this matter, and I welcome the opportunity to share my point of view.

On February 28, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822), which would effectively allow the concealed carry gun laws of one state to nullify restrictions on concealed carry in other states. This bill would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states – including states with less restrictive gun control laws. To date, no companion legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate.

I do not support concealed weapons license reciprocity. It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit.

Last Congress, Senator John Thune (R-SD) offered legislation similar to the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" as an amendment to the "National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010" (S. 1390). I opposed the measure, and the amendment failed by a vote of 58 to 39 because it did not receive the required 60 votes needed to pass.

Please know that while concealed weapons reciprocity may be an issue on which we disagree, I respect your opinion and I am sure that there will be other issues on which we will find common ground.

I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

LUCKY YOU!

You got a variant of the old "we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one" letter from DiFi.

As a previous poster mentioned - the libs are floating the old "gun rights aren't the same everywhere" canard. Which is their way of saying "in the places where we're violating your rights and you lack the political clout to make us stop, we're going to keep on doing it".

She needs replacing so badly!

CEDaytonaRydr
02-29-2012, 4:40 PM
I'm all for states rights as long as I wasn't living in CA,HI,NJ,NY,MA. I pick states rights as long as I didn't live in any of those states.

You know who craves "state's right"? The states that are on the losing side of the argument. Whining about "State's Rights" didn't work for George Wallace and it's not going to work for Diane Feinstein... ;)

proclone1
02-29-2012, 4:47 PM
Hell, if Davy Jones can die of a heart attack at 66, how much time could she have left?
Ryan

Evil lasts a really, really, d*mn long time.

BTW who is in your avatar?!? Finally I have an opportunity to ask. Is the same woman on the outside-frames the same in the green bikini in the center frames?

kotetu
02-29-2012, 8:00 PM
The state doesn't "grant" rights - we are born with them. No one needs to tell you if, when, and how you are allowed to protect yourself. That is a Natural Right. The statists want you to believe that rights come from government or from social contract, but they do not.

Read up my friends.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

fd15k
02-29-2012, 8:08 PM
The state doesn't "grant" rights - we are born with them. No one needs to tell you if, when, and how you are allowed to protect yourself. That is a Natural Right. The statists want you to believe that rights come from government or from social contract, but they do not.

Read up my friends.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

It's legal philosophy, and all of that stuff is invented for convenience :) It's just like some constants in Math.

safewaysecurity
02-29-2012, 8:14 PM
Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. Was it her or Barbara Boxer that proposed the bill at the federal level that would have made ALL states may issue? She says it's a state issue until she wants to pass a bill restricting our rights. She is one of the most disgusting politicians there are. I don't know much about Elizabeth Emken but if she wins the Republican primary then I will be voting for her against Feinstein.

motorhead
02-29-2012, 8:32 PM
oh boy, one of the sea hag's canned letters telling you she doesn't care what you want. i don't even bother with her or boxer anymore. she has to die someday.

dantodd
02-29-2012, 9:12 PM
I want to ask 'What makes urban areas any different than rural areas when defending oneself from grave injury?'


Urban areas are where poor people of color live. That's the main difference and those are the people she wants to disarm.

Colt-45
02-29-2012, 9:17 PM
You know who craves "state's right"? The states that are on the losing side of the argument. Whining about "State's Rights" didn't work for George Wallace and it's not going to work for Diane Feinstein... ;)

If I lived in Utah, Arizona, Texas or Alaska I'd be all for states rights.;)

2009_gunner
02-29-2012, 9:59 PM
I wrote Diane a few months ago, and got no reply. Guess she had nothing to counter with.

Senator Feinstein,

As a 35 year resident of California, I was glad to see HR822 pass the House.

HR822 helps ensure that all States must respect the 2nd Amendment. Some opponents of HR822 claim the bill violates States' Rights, but States' Rights are overruled by the combined effect of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

We live in a land ruled by law. And the documents which form the basis of our law must mean what they say - especially those laws which concern civil rights.

Please vote "YES" on HR822.

Thank you for your consideration,
"2009_gunner"

wikioutdoor
02-29-2012, 11:30 PM
"whats good in areas with no crime may not be good in areas with high crime. While you might like to defend yourself I find your letters annoying and I hope you die" - <3 diane

ErikTheRed
03-01-2012, 12:08 AM
A filthy liberal progressive pig of a hypocrite. And yeah, the nasty ol' hag is gonna die someday. So will that ultra left-wing skank Boxer. But so what? This is California. They'll be replaced with two more EXACTLY like them. This state is lost, its only chance of recovery is a complete meltdown and total rebuild from the ground up. I appreciate and support all of the efforts to regain our rights and a sense of logic and prosperity in California, but the sad truth is, until the uber-liberal nitwit voters of this God-forsaken state receive a b*tch-slap dose of reality, our efforts are futile.

email
03-01-2012, 12:41 AM
She must live in an urban area...doesn't she have a CCW?

Falconis
03-01-2012, 1:28 AM
Feinstein is a San Francisco native. Unfortunately. Anyhow, for a change in thought, has anyone thought of writing a letter and heading off all potential rebuttal statements in the initial letter. I figured this is a multi step process. Have everyone share their letters here from various representatives, then go through and start writing almost a form type letter with statements in it that head off any and all arguments they use. Some examples below:

It is my belief turns into something like, you as a REPRESENTATIVE of the people

*Now somewhat defunct* State's rights turns into a reminder of what the supreme court just said

so on and so forth.

Of course the first step is sharing what we have in one place

vantec08
03-01-2012, 2:38 AM
She must live in an urban area...doesn't she have a CCW?

She did at one time, has since said she let it expire and - - get this -- "melted her gun down into a cross and presented it to the Pope."

One78Shovel
03-01-2012, 3:13 AM
Feinstein is a San Francisco native. Unfortunately. Anyhow, for a change in thought, has anyone thought of writing a letter and heading off all potential rebuttal statements in the initial letter. I figured this is a multi step process. Have everyone share their letters here from various representatives, then go through and start writing almost a form type letter with statements in it that head off any and all arguments they use. Some examples below:

It is my belief turns into something like, you as a REPRESENTATIVE of the people

*Now somewhat defunct* State's rights turns into a reminder of what the supreme court just said

so on and so forth.

Of course the first step is sharing what we have in one place

Interesting thought.

I would like to debate her in a public forum. But as we are seeing in the republican Presidential race, 2nd Amendment concerns/issues are kept buried not to be discussed publicly.

-178S

Bobby Hated
03-01-2012, 4:08 AM
The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit.



right of states? yes senator, federal law does in fact usurp state law. i'm pretty sure we fought a war over that one.

and since when is feinstein a states' rights advocate? ha ha

Tripper
03-01-2012, 4:45 AM
She did at one time, has since said she let it expire and - - get this -- "melted her gun down into a cross and presented it to the Pope."

Does that mean she
Unlawfully obliterated a serial number of a firearm
Isn't that illegal

Tripper
03-01-2012, 4:47 AM
I also thought the statement about issuing to who they see 'fit', not really any criteria

Ford8N
03-01-2012, 5:28 AM
States right issue??? so, is the 1st amendment a states rights issue? the 4th? the 14th?? WTF??

Yes, in California you have no 2nd Amendment rights, none.

Urban areas are where poor people of color live. That's the main difference and those are the people she wants to disarm.

Yes,Feinstein, her minions and supporters do not trust people of color. They are scared of armed Mexicans, Blacks, Asians, ect.

Interesting thought.

I would like to debate her in a public forum. But as we are seeing in the republican Presidential race, 2nd Amendment concerns/issues are kept buried not to be discussed publicly.

-178S

I've noticed that too. I think it proves that Republicans as a group, at their core, really only use the gun issue to get votes. If it would get them votes, I believe they would toss the gun owner under the bus. Look at our last Governor.


The bottom line is that California is not part of the United States. Just the way it is.

ccmc
03-01-2012, 5:29 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that her opinion doesn't matter, that as an agent of the people, she should do as the PEOPLE want, not what she wants.

She is doing what the people of California want.

NytWolf
03-01-2012, 7:47 AM
I can't believe I woke up in the middle of the night thinking about this stupid post. While lying in bed, I thought of this letter to send back to our reps:


Dear Ms. Chu/Ms. Feinstein/Ms. Boxer/<fill in any other rep's name>,

Thank you for taking your time to respond to my concerns regarding H.R. 822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I respect your opinions regarding the my fellow citizens' safety.

However, as a concerned citizen and a member of the voting population, I demand that you put your personal opinions aside and I challenge you to do the duty that we elected you to do.

I represent to you the following:

Fact: The country is in a state of economic distress.
Fact: The people are resorting to crimes to get by.
Fact: Criminals do not care about laws.
Fact: Criminals never will care about laws.
Fact: Laws hurt the law-abiding citizen more than criminals.

As a concerned citizen and member of the voting public, I request that my voice be heard in all its weight so that you, as my representative, can better represent me.

Thank you,

Wherryj
03-01-2012, 8:14 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that her opinion doesn't matter, that as an agent of the people, she should do as the PEOPLE want, not what she wants. In a perfect world, that's how it's supposed to be. In the real world, how much cash have you got? Hell, if Davy Jones can die of a heart attack at 66, how much time could she have left?
Ryan

Only the good die young. The evil thrive eternally. I suspect that she may set a Guiness Record for longevity.

donw
03-01-2012, 8:34 AM
I don't find this to be a states rights issue even remotely. Its an individual rights issue. States have no right to trample on the rights of the people and there is no legitimate reason that ones right to defend themselves from violent attack should end at a state border.

the state of California constitution does not have a "second amendment"...the "Right" to own firearms...does that mean it can trample the US Constitutions 2A?

vantec08
03-01-2012, 8:44 AM
Does that mean she
Unlawfully obliterated a serial number of a firearm
Isn't that illegal

I hope the Pope scolded her, then called BATF.

fonso
03-01-2012, 12:39 PM
I got the same response from george miller.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

That guy is a worthless piece of cr**!!! i cannot believe that he continues to be re-elected to office (but I have talked to several of his Pittsburg constituents who absolutely love him, so I guess that explains it).

Back in the '70s I used to attend his town hall meetings and give him materials from the John Birch Society.

Needless to say, he DID NOT relish the idea of me being present at his get-togethers. :jump::jump:

Drivedabizness
03-01-2012, 1:09 PM
Like DiFi - Miller started out this side of sane but after 30 years of easy elections and a steady stream of union campaign dollars he lives on another planet.

Ford8N
03-01-2012, 4:44 PM
the state of California constitution does not have a "second amendment"...the "Right" to own firearms...does that mean it can trample the US Constitutions 2A?

Absolutely, and with impunity. Your Rulers could care less about your Second Amendment Rights.

Hopalong
03-01-2012, 4:56 PM
I'm embarrassed about our US Senators.

They would never get elected in Alaska, Wyoming (the states she mentioned)

Somebody must have voted for them, nobody I know.

I don't see anything improving any time soon, or in my lifetime.

I like the weather here.

glockman19
03-01-2012, 6:24 PM
Dear Ms. Chu/Ms. Feinstein/Ms. Boxer/<fill in any other rep's name>,

Thank you for taking your time to respond to my concerns regarding H.R. 822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I respect your opinions regarding the my fellow citizens' safety.

However, as a concerned citizen and a member of the voting population, I demand that you put your personal opinions aside and I challenge you to do the duty that we elected you to do.

I represent to you the following:

Fact: The country is in a state of economic distress.
Fact: The people are resorting to crimes to get by.
Fact: Criminals do not care about laws.
Fact: Criminals never will care about laws.
Fact: Laws hurt the law-abiding citizen more than criminals.

As a concerned citizen and member of the voting public, I request that my voice be heard in all its weight so that you, as my representative, can better represent me.

Thank you,

I really Like thatmay I use it?

stix213
03-01-2012, 7:56 PM
it's really a state's rights issue and she's partially correct.

I don't agree with her stance on guns but I do believe in state's rights. If i had to choose i'd pick state's rights any day because it's a closer more accountable form of governance.

at the same time we live in a representative democracy so once she represents us she can do whatever she wants.


I still can't believe boxer was reelected... i can't stand the mindless union thugs in this state.

States have the same rights to deny carry with regard to the 2A as denying religious freedom with regard to the 1A.

CEDaytonaRydr
03-01-2012, 9:50 PM
If I lived in Utah, Arizona, Texas or Alaska I'd be all for states rights.;)

It's not that simple...

No state (none of them) should have the right to defy the constitution. The "states rights" issue came up in the 1960s when Alabama wanted to continue segregating schools, bathrooms and restaurants. It didn't work for them and it's not going to work for Feinstein.

I just find it hilarious that she's advocating "state's rights". What an idiot... :facepalm:

Falconis
03-01-2012, 10:32 PM
To the person who wants to debate her, not gonna happen. She has no opposition to her seat and therefor no reason to debate anyone. She is just smart enough to realize this and not much smarter.

ClarenceBoddicker
03-02-2012, 12:40 AM
Simple solutions people, term limits for all politicians. Worked with FDR & Willie Brown.

goodlookin1
03-02-2012, 5:42 AM
I emailed the same thing to Maxine Waters. She responded:

"These are DEMONS!!!"

:D

rudigan
03-02-2012, 5:52 AM
She is doing what the people of California want.

To clarify, what the majority of "progressives" from SoCal and Bay area want, as they pretty much have put us where we are today.

Meplat
03-02-2012, 6:02 AM
How smarmy.:cool:



Should be no surprise that I was not surprised.

I wrote to both Sen Boxer and Sen Feinstien urging them to demand H.R. 822 be acted upon in the Senate as it has not been taken up for vote.

-178S

================================================== ===
Dear Mr. xxxxxx

I received your letter and want to thank you for contacting me regarding concealed weapons license reciprocity. I respect your opinion on this matter, and I welcome the opportunity to share my point of view.

On February 28, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822), which would effectively allow the concealed carry gun laws of one state to nullify restrictions on concealed carry in other states. This bill would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states – including states with less restrictive gun control laws. To date, no companion legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate.

I do not support concealed weapons license reciprocity. It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit.

Last Congress, Senator John Thune (R-SD) offered legislation similar to the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" as an amendment to the "National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010" (S. 1390). I opposed the measure, and the amendment failed by a vote of 58 to 39 because it did not receive the required 60 votes needed to pass.

Please know that while concealed weapons reciprocity may be an issue on which we disagree, I respect your opinion and I am sure that there will be other issues on which we will find common ground.

I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

1859sharps
03-02-2012, 7:42 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that her opinion doesn't matter, that as an agent of the people, she should do as the PEOPLE want, not what she wants. In a perfect world, that's how it's supposed to be.

actually you are little bit wrong. the way our system works is we "hire" (elect) someone to watch the "store". generally they should do what we want, BUT there is also the expectation that they use their brains and intelligence to make a sound decision even if that means going against the "will of the people" sometimes.

Example, it was the "will of the people" at one point that certain portions of the population be treated as second class citizens at best and at worst literally slaves. If that attitude returned, do you really want someone in office who is a "slave" to the "will of the people"? I am sure there are other examples of times and situations where our elected officials need to ignore the "will of the people".

in the ideal, we aren't electing puppets, we are electing people to take into account a lot of variables and make an informed decision on our behalf.

clearly this doesn't always work out in the ideal, people get elected and "sell" them self to the highest bidder, or they have personal agendas and the constitution and general will of the people be damned.

Connor P Price
03-02-2012, 8:41 AM
the state of California constitution does not have a "second amendment"...the "Right" to own firearms...does that mean it can trample the US Constitutions 2A?

I don't understand your question in response to my post.

fpeel
03-02-2012, 12:20 PM
It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York.

That's the same tripe she sent me on the subject and there it is in black and white boys and girls, straight from the horse's a**, I mean mouth: Some animals really are more equal than others. :facepalm:

I can't recall the last time I voted for someone who won an election for a major office and not being represented for decades at a time is really beginning to p*ss me off. :mad:

J.D.Allen
03-02-2012, 12:36 PM
"it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit. "

Yes, it would. And that would be a good thing miss phony bologna senator, because THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH THE STATES' LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

And I am all about states' rights. But there are certain issues, namely, those attached to rights specifically enumerated in the federal constitution, that trump states' rights, every time, without exception. This happens to be one of those few issues.

Casual_Shooter
03-02-2012, 12:50 PM
Until the 2nd Amendment is defined differently, the politicians will always fall back to the position that concealed carry is a state's rights issue.

i.e. You can have a firearm; that's your 2nd Amendment right (yay! Aren't we cool to acknowledge that!). But it's up to the states to decide how/ when/ where you can carry it.

Inquisitor
03-03-2012, 2:40 PM
“ · · · THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED [Amendment II].” This statement does not create, limit or endow a right; it is an affirmation of a people's right. It also does not delegate to the Federal Government the power to infringe upon that right. Instead, it prohibits any infringement of that right by any entity, not just the Federal Government of the United States, but also the States or any political subdivision thereof. “THIS CONSTITUTION . . . SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING [Article VI].” All the States have reviewed and ratified the US Constitution, in its entirety, and are thereby bound by it. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE [Amendment X].” The right (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” is reserved to (and belongs to) the people and the power to infringe on that right is prohibited by Amendment II without any qualification or limitation. Further, “· · · NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES · · ·” [Amendment XIV, Section 1], and “THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.” [Amendment XIV, Section 5].

As regards Concealed Weapons Permits, “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.” [Article IV, Section 1]. Finally, “NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, · · · , ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT OR COMPACT WITH ANOTHER STATE, · · · [Article I, Section 10, Clause 3].” prohibits States from entering into agreements with other States, such as “Reciprocity Agreements” for the carrying of concealed weapons, without the specific consent of the US Congress.
(infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another)

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations [Amendment XIV and Article IV, Section 1] to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

Ford8N
03-03-2012, 4:10 PM
“ · · · THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED [Amendment II].” This statement does not create, limit or endow a right; it is an affirmation of a people's right. It also does not delegate to the Federal Government the power to infringe upon that right. Instead, it prohibits any infringement of that right by any entity, not just the Federal Government of the United States, but also the States or any political subdivision thereof. “THIS CONSTITUTION . . . SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING [Article VI].” All the States have reviewed and ratified the US Constitution, in its entirety, and are thereby bound by it. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE [Amendment X].” The right (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” is reserved to (and belongs to) the people and the power to infringe on that right is prohibited by Amendment II without any qualification or limitation. Further, “· · · NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES · · ·” [Amendment XIV, Section 1], and “THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.” [Amendment XIV, Section 5].

As regards Concealed Weapons Permits, “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.” [Article IV, Section 1]. Finally, “NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, · · · , ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT OR COMPACT WITH ANOTHER STATE, · · · [Article I, Section 10, Clause 3].” prohibits States from entering into agreements with other States, such as “Reciprocity Agreements” for the carrying of concealed weapons, without the specific consent of the US Congress.
(infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another)

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations [Amendment XIV and Article IV, Section 1] to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!


You can talk all you want, California Rulers wipe their @**es with the US Constitution. California is not part of the United States.

Inquisitor
03-03-2012, 8:12 PM
You can talk all you want, California Rulers wipe their @**es with the US Constitution. California is not part of the United States.

I understand and it is not just California. H.R. 822 is in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and here are the ratings (Gun Owners of America) of the members:

Committee Members [Gun Owners of America Rating]
Patrick J. Leahy [F]
Chairman, D-Vermont

Herb Kohl [F]
D-Wisconsin

Dianne Feinstein [F-]
D-California

Chuck Schumer [F-]
D-New York

Dick Durbin [F-]
D-Illinois

Sheldon Whitehouse [F-]
D-Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar [F]
D-Minnesota

Al Franken [F]
D-Minnesota

Christopher A. Coons [D]
D-Delaware

Richard Blumenthal [F-]
D-Connecticut

Chuck Grassley [A-]
Ranking Member, R-Iowa

Orrin G. Hatch [C]
R-Utah

Jon Kyl [A-]
R-Arizona

Jeff Sessions [A-]
R-Alabama

Lindsey Graham [B-]
R-South Carolina

John Cornyn [A]
R-Texas

Michael S. Lee [A]
R-Utah

Tom Coburn [A+]
R-Oklahoma

ccmc
03-04-2012, 4:51 AM
I understand and it is not just California. H.R. 822 is in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and here are the ratings (Gun Owners of America) of the members:

Committee Members [Gun Owners of America Rating]
Patrick J. Leahy [F]
Chairman, D-Vermont

Herb Kohl [F]
D-Wisconsin

Dianne Feinstein [F-]
D-California

Chuck Schumer [F-]
D-New York

Dick Durbin [F-]
D-Illinois

Sheldon Whitehouse [F-]
D-Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar [F]
D-Minnesota

Al Franken [F]
D-Minnesota

Christopher A. Coons [D]
D-Delaware

Richard Blumenthal [F-]
D-Connecticut

Chuck Grassley [A-]
Ranking Member, R-Iowa

Orrin G. Hatch [C]
R-Utah

Jon Kyl [A-]
R-Arizona

Jeff Sessions [A-]
R-Alabama

Lindsey Graham [B-]
R-South Carolina

John Cornyn [A]
R-Texas

Michael S. Lee [A]
R-Utah

Tom Coburn [A+]
R-Oklahoma

Hmmm. So all the democrats on this committee are rated F with one exception who has a D rating, and all the republicans are A rated with two exceptions (B and C), and some people here still insist on saying there's no difference in the two parties stance on RKBA.

BTW Florida is at more densely populated than California, so that should dispense with Feinstein's rural vs urban nonsense.

SilverTauron
03-04-2012, 5:45 AM
H.R. 822 is going to die in the Senate committee. The Democrats lose no matter what if that bill is advanced to a vote, as Obama will be forced to take a stance on gun rights or look dumb by dodging the issue during an election year. Should H.R. 822 pass the Senate-and it has the support to do so from the constituents-Obama will have a real dilemma on his hands.

Zero goes against Democratic party principles and signs the bill into law=death warrant for his wealthy liberal political support during an election year.

Zero vetos the bill= certain loss of support during a tough re-election campaign.If H.R. 822 makes it to the Senate floor, no matter what happens next the Democrats crash and burn.

Inquisitor
03-04-2012, 8:18 AM
There is a way to force a floor vote on H.R. 822 in the Senate. Any Senator can add the full text of a Bill to any other Bill that is on the floor for a vote. That makes the Committee irrelevant. That is what happened in 2009 with the Thune Amendment that Dianne Feinstein mentioned in her letter.

The actual vote on the Thune Amendment in 2009 was:

YEA: 38 Republicans, 20 Democrats = 58
NAY: 2 Republicans, 35 Democrats, 2 Independents = 39
NOT VOTING: 3 Democrats
But there are rumors that these votes may be misleading because once it was clear that the YEAs could not get the required 60 votes, some Democrats voted YEA to get the pro-gun votes at home.

In that year there were: 40 Republicans, 58 Democrats, and 2 Independents. In this year there are: 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, and 2 Independents. With more Republicans (but still not a majority) there may be a better chance of passage (will need 60 votes) in this Congress. But, H.R. 822 has to be forced out of Committee because that Committee will never put it up for a vote. We need ONE Senator to force it out of Committee for a floor vote!

Mulay El Raisuli
03-04-2012, 10:02 AM
Should be no surprise that I was not surprised.

I wrote to both Sen Boxer and Sen Feinstien urging them to demand H.R. 822 be acted upon in the Senate as it has not been taken up for vote.

-178S

================================================== ===
Dear Mr. xxxxxx

I received your letter and want to thank you for contacting me regarding concealed weapons license reciprocity. I respect your opinion on this matter, and I welcome the opportunity to share my point of view.

On February 28, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822), which would effectively allow the concealed carry gun laws of one state to nullify restrictions on concealed carry in other states. This bill would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states – including states with less restrictive gun control laws. To date, no companion legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate.

I do not support concealed weapons license reciprocity. It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit.

Last Congress, Senator John Thune (R-SD) offered legislation similar to the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" as an amendment to the "National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010" (S. 1390). I opposed the measure, and the amendment failed by a vote of 58 to 39 because it did not receive the required 60 votes needed to pass.

Please know that while concealed weapons reciprocity may be an issue on which we disagree, I respect your opinion and I am sure that there will be other issues on which we will find common ground.

I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator


Emphasized the biggest part of FAIL in her reply. Rights aren't dependent on what a bureaucrat thinks is "fit."


Am I wrong in thinking that her opinion doesn't matter, that as an agent of the people, she should do as the PEOPLE want, not what she wants. In a perfect world, that's how it's supposed to be. In the real world, how much cash have you got? Hell, if Davy Jones can die of a heart attack at 66, how much time could she have left?
Ryan


Well, the Devil is good to his own, so she could be with us for a long time yet.


Exactly. So long as they don't do anything to anger SEIU they will win elections as long as they are breathing.

I'm sure that Carly Fiorina or maybe even Peter Thiel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel) might be running against Barbara Boxer, and it won't matter if they spend a billion dollars and give everyone a pony, they will lose.


Sadly, too true. Still, I'd have a pony. :)


The Raisuli

gazzavc
03-04-2012, 6:01 PM
Fienstien needs to be hit in the face with a custard pie.



I know , I know, it's a waste of good custard..........

NytWolf
03-13-2012, 10:14 AM
I really Like thatmay I use it?

By all means, please use it.

Volksgrenadier
03-13-2012, 1:04 PM
I think I was most stunned by the fact that DiFi argued a 10th Amendment perspective against Federal "usurpation".

The argument that concealed carry is somehow useful in the wilds of Alaska but not in urban areas is a perfect "shoulder thing that goes up" moment.

http://i54.tinypic.com/se4kua.jpg