Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-05-2018, 2:22 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
The Feds are not going to give the people more power. That's against their personal constitution.
I agree the feds don't want to pass the correct laws or enforce the ones that are in place, but they are the only ones that get some of the anti gun states in line.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-05-2018, 3:11 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
Are you a democrat or just stuck with TV ? Join the NRA and cancell the anti gun media.
I am a Marine and you are embarrassing me !
I'm pretty far right. My wife likes to point out how far right I've gone as she is more moderate. I have a lifetime membership (in the works on payment).

Not sure what is to be embarrassed about. There are plenty of libtard Marines out there to be embarrassed about. I could rephrase and say, I expected a lot more and was disappointed that more was not passed while all houses were held.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-05-2018, 3:25 PM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
National Reciprocity was dead from the get go - and if Congress has decided to pass a zombie, SCOTUS would have taken it up as a case so fast and killed that the proponents of gay marriage would have "whined" "discrimination" out of sheer jealously.

States regulate CCW...SCOTUS recognized this in Heller v. DC....in word and in the referenced / cited precedents....the Federal Government jurisdiction is pretty much limited to travel.

Nat. Reciprocity would be a 9th / 10th violation...easy decision. Probably would have been unanimous too.
False. The Feds have the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. Which is everything and anything. Even things like growing wheat for personal consumption - or growing pot in your closet for your own use. They could even pass a law requiring us to buy a Ruger, since they upheld the ACA health insurance mandate. The states can regulate guns but so can the Feds, and federal law is supreme. The feds could even preempt state law completely if they decided to (which some argue would be short sighted for gun rights, a Trojan Horse).

As for a 10th violation, it's not an "easy" decision. There have only been a couple of 10th SCOTUS decisions ever. It would depend on how the statute is written, but since the 2nd has been incorporated, the 14th empowers Congress to legislate to enforce constitutional rights (e.g., 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act). Yes the Brady Bill was initially struck down on 10th Amendment grounds (which helped me pass the Bar since a 10th question came up on my exam). But that's because it "commandeered" local law enforcement to do something it wasn't doing before, i.e., run background checks. But forcing states to honor different states laws, or live up to certain constitutional standards is different from forcing them to do something (one could argue that they already process CCW applications and reject them). Noted gun attorney David Kopel thinks it's constitutional.

But as others mentioned, is it a good idea, federalizing this? When we are only a few years removed from a 60 Democrat Senate, President Obama, and Speaker Pelosi?

Paul Ryan is worse than useless, he's a traitor to his party. But those dogging McConnell as a RINO are just being silly. McConnell is why we have Justice Kavanaugh instead of Justice Garland, and that took brass balls.

Yes it would take 60 Senate votes to pass and we have 53. Or 52 and Susan Collins.
__________________
"Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them." - Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-05-2018, 3:35 PM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
McConnell doesn't have 60 votes in the Senate to overcome the filibuster.
Why wouldn't Vermont, New Mexico, and AZ do it. They have the votes! All we need is 50
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-05-2018, 7:04 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 227
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

NO. NO WE DONT. IT IS SIXTY! 60 votes to end the filibuster. LEARN THE BASICS OF OUR GOV'T.

Also... Vermont!!?? You think Sanders or Leahy would vote for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
Why wouldn't Vermont, New Mexico, and AZ do it. They have the votes! All we need is 50
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-05-2018, 7:45 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,088
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
I remember the grandiose dreams I had of Trump coming in on a white horse and securing our 2A rights for good and ending all the pointless and overreaching laws. But alas, I got nothing of what I wanted. Well, at least I can't buy bump stocks soon because of one guy using something almost 99% of the population didn't know existed.
President Trump is doing the absolute best he can do.He did ride in on a white horse and gave us so far 2 A plus rated justices plus the bully pulpit on RKBA.

Im pleased you are joining NRA as life member.

See you at the next convention where president Trump and VP Pence will no doubt address us again as he did in Dallas this year !

No one who appreciates American liberty should ever have a negative thing to say about this great man.

At the largest gun culture shooting event in the world there were at least 1 out of 10 people wearing Pro Trump shirts !
I pity the poor snapper head who would say anything negative about Mr Trump at that event ( KC machine gun shoot)!

Last edited by ja308; 12-05-2018 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:03 PM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
NO. NO WE DONT. IT IS SIXTY! 60 votes to end the filibuster. LEARN THE BASICS OF OUR GOV'T.

Also... Vermont!!?? You think Sanders or Leahy would vote for this?
Why not. They are constitutional carry.

Simple majority passes a bill in Senate dude. Let them filibuster, and let's have a national debate then.

We'll all go around and about on Facebook spreading literature on how low crime CCW's are.
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!

Last edited by Highlander21; 12-05-2018 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:20 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 579
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
...

Simple majority passes a bill in Senate dude. Let them filibuster, and let's have a national debate then.

...
Wrong-O:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fili..._States_Senate

Quote:
The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a "two-track" procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item, instead of the previously held simple majority standard. As a result, the modern "filibuster" rarely manifests as an extended floor debate. Instead, "the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years."[2] This effective supermajority requirement has had very significant policy and political impacts on Congress and the other branches of government.
Going back to majority vote rules would have many unintended consequences. Witness what happened with Harry Reid and McConnell vis a vis nominations and SCOTUS confirmation. Each time one party goes nuclear, the other side will wield the same power once the senate flips. The 60-vote margin is normally a safety valve, but what we saw with Kavanaugh was simply gross and probably the right thing to do to make it a majority vote again to prevent future Borking.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 12-05-2018 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:58 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,666
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
Why not. They are constitutional carry.

Simple majority passes a bill in Senate dude. Let them filibuster, and let's have a national debate then.

We'll all go around and about on Facebook spreading literature on how low crime CCW's are.
Vermont is CC due to a state court ruling in 1906. They are very blue.The senators from vermont have already jumped on banning AW and over 10rd magazines. They will never sign on to national reciprocity.

We do not have the sixty votes and getting them will not happen anytime soon.

Anyone who is complaining about Trump is a dolt. Congress has to get him a bill. The senate cannot get sixty votes. The house has already passed national reciprocity. There is a clear legislative road block that republicans cannot undue unless people vote out democrats.

On top of that Trump got us Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Without Trump we would be sitting at a 6-3 liberal majority. It baffles me that people don't understand how huge this is- far more important than a single national reciprocity bill becoming law of the land.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:30 AM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Vermont is CC due to a state court ruling in 1906. They are very blue.The senators from vermont have already jumped on banning AW and over 10rd magazines. They will never sign on to national reciprocity.

We do not have the sixty votes and getting them will not happen anytime soon.

Anyone who is complaining about Trump is a dolt. Congress has to get him a bill. The senate cannot get sixty votes. The house has already passed national reciprocity. There is a clear legislative road block that republicans cannot undue unless people vote out democrats.

On top of that Trump got us Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who support liberal gun laws. Without Trump we would be sitting at a 6-3 liberal majority. It baffles me that people don't understand how huge this is- far more important than a single national reciprocity bill becoming law of the land.
Liberal gun laws mean freedom. I like freedom. Vermont does too. They could have reversed constitutional carry any time they wanted to. They didn't.

We already have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who support liberal gun laws. We don't have national reciprocity.

Maybe Democrats will filibuster, maybe they will not. Let's have a national debate if they filibuster and it will be on the news.

FOX news is in NYC an ANTI GUN CITY. No one has heard the pro CCW side because NEITHER FOX NOR CNN will let it be heard. Having a national debate is the only way to have the pro CCW side be heard!
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!

Last edited by Highlander21; 12-06-2018 at 12:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:52 AM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MANY liberal women LOVE the idea of conceal carrying a firearm in their purse. ESPECIALLY given all this me too stuff.

Liberal men HATE the idea of women conceal carrying.

This is a GREAT WAY to divide them in HALF and have LIBERAL WOMEN join pro CCW advocates on THIS ISSUE!

You don't want hot young women to join your side and leave whiny skinny jeans she-males behind?
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-06-2018, 9:14 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Senate has always been the problem (the house will be no go next year). There were always 57-58 votes for it.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:25 AM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,848
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
MANY liberal women LOVE the idea of conceal carrying a firearm in their purse. ESPECIALLY given all this me too stuff.

Liberal men HATE the idea of women conceal carrying.

This is a GREAT WAY to divide them in HALF and have LIBERAL WOMEN join pro CCW advocates on THIS ISSUE!

You don't want hot young women to join your side and leave whiny skinny jeans she-males behind?
There better strategies to hook up the hot girls. Pro-2A stance won't take you far.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:53 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 227
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

-The fact that the Vermont State House has not changed their gun carry laws has absolutely nothing to do with how Vermonts 2 senators vote in Congress. They are both vehemently anti-gun.... how do you not know this?

-You just posted about how all the news is anti gun... yet you somehow think the debate would be a positive for us in the news?

-Also, again, please learn how your government works.... 60 votes is automatically needed for cloture, someone does not "choose" to envoke the 60 vote need. So yes, we know, right now, that 60 votes are needed, and are not there.

There is no point forcing a vote that is doomed. "Lame duck republicans try to force dangerous gun law at the last minute. Gun violence advocates stage die in."

Yeah... that will help us a bunch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
Liberal gun laws mean freedom. I like freedom. Vermont does too. They could have reversed constitutional carry any time they wanted to. They didn't.

We already have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who support liberal gun laws. We don't have national reciprocity.

Maybe Democrats will filibuster, maybe they will not. Let's have a national debate if they filibuster and it will be on the news.

FOX news is in NYC an ANTI GUN CITY. No one has heard the pro CCW side because NEITHER FOX NOR CNN will let it be heard. Having a national debate is the only way to have the pro CCW side be heard!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:06 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 579
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
Liberal gun laws mean freedom. I like freedom. Vermont does too. They could have reversed constitutional carry any time they wanted to. They didn't.

...
Clearly you are missing out on some key information on how government operates. Vermont tried to ban concealed carry and the law was struck down as unconstitutional, against their State Constitution by their state Supreme Court.

They couldn't "reverse" it anymore than the state's or Federal Government can "reverse" a U.S. Supreme Court decision, hence the name "Constitutional Carry."

And here again is another reason why lack of teaching civics is a profound problem.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 12-06-2018 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-06-2018, 2:08 PM
robertmneal93 robertmneal93 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: East Bay
Posts: 60
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Vermont is CC due to a state court ruling in 1906. They are very blue.The senators from vermont have already jumped on banning AW and over 10rd magazines. They will never sign on to national reciprocity.

We do not have the sixty votes and getting them will not happen anytime soon.

Anyone who is complaining about Trump is a dolt. Congress has to get him a bill. The senate cannot get sixty votes. The house has already passed national reciprocity. There is a clear legislative road block that republicans cannot undue unless people vote out democrats.

On top of that Trump got us Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Without Trump we would be sitting at a 6-3 liberal majority. It baffles me that people don't understand how huge this is- far more important than a single national reciprocity bill becoming law of the land.

Interesting. Isn't VT the state whose governor pushed anti-gun legislation, thinking it's what the blue state wanted, and the whole state threw a fit, to the point which he retracted his statements and intentions?

I've read and been told VT is a "progressive" and very pro gun state
__________________
Libertarian in philosophy
Rights oriented centrist in reality
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-06-2018, 4:40 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,088
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertmneal93 View Post
Interesting. Isn't VT the state whose governor pushed anti-gun legislation, thinking it's what the blue state wanted, and the whole state threw a fit, to the point which he retracted his statements and intentions?

I've read and been told VT is a "progressive" and very pro gun state
Thats what they say Bob, but the reality is they are extremely regressive going back to the rule of royal blood via socialism.
The progun element will end when they get any opening ( mass shooting) etc.

http://thedeclination.com/what-socialists-really-want/
Drudge this morning, I found a brief snippet about Jack Ma, richest man in China, being a member of the Communist party. Does this surprise you? Communism has never been a ground-up, grassroots movement from the lower classes, despite the popular reputation as such. Rather, it is an ideology led by the second-tier wealthy scions who fancy themselves to be intellectuals. Thomas Sowell had the right of it:

Most people who read ‘The Communist Manifesto’ probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of ‘the workers.’

Marxists merely presume to use the lower classes against their enemies in the middle and upper classes. Ultimately, they don’t want to deal with the dirty, teeming masses in their living rooms, or even their zip codes. Socialists have had the run of California since the early 90s, and yet their vision has resulted in the second-highest poverty rate in the United States (adjusted for cost-of-living – something Leftists rarely bother with). A quote from the original source:

Last edited by ja308; 12-06-2018 at 4:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:47 AM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Clearly you are missing out on some key information on how government operates. Vermont tried to ban concealed carry and the law was struck down as unconstitutional, against their State Constitution by their state Supreme Court.

They couldn't "reverse" it anymore than the state's or Federal Government can "reverse" a U.S. Supreme Court decision, hence the name "Constitutional Carry."

And here again is another reason why lack of teaching civics is a profound problem.
A state where constitutional carry is in it's constitution means that it's citizens grew up with a profound understanding of their right to bear arms.

Vermont citizen's understanding of their rights would be much more profound than that of the average Californian.

What is there left to lose? We have what we need on the Supreme Court. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Right now, people in OC are coming around to CCW because after 14,000 CCW permits, there are zero serious crimes.

This is a great way to make people realize it's nothing big. Right now UT Austin feels stupid for going against campus carry 2 years ago. Nothing happened in two years!
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-08-2018, 10:35 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 579
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
A state where constitutional carry is in it's constitution means that it's citizens grew up with a profound understanding of their right to bear arms.

Vermont citizen's understanding of their rights would be much more profound than that of the average Californian.

What is there left to lose?
And yet, those same Vermonters that you say understand their rights, just reelected the same guy that approved the first gun control in 258 years upon the state. They could have primaried him, but couldn't do it.

No, Vermont's firearms beliefs only extend to hunting for the most part. And, worse, it's a huge bastion of ex New Yorkers and lefties from Massachusetts, they've approved of Bernie and it's property taxes among the highest in the nation. It's a socialist utopia and I would expect their gun rights to further degrade as the Vermont Supreme Court trends farther left.

We will see if their new laws pass the same muster as the 1906 case.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-08-2018, 11:02 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
spoken like a true uneducated "Independent " stuck in big media mode!
Jimi did you miss the post about peaceable journey?
Did you miss the bill's abandonment by congress? Just what have they done for you lately?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:56 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.