The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 20, 2009, 04:50 PM   #26
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
I am a capitalist through and through, but the credit card industry has royally screwed its card-holders over and over. And sadly the worse victims are those who can least afford the rate change from 12% to 29% at the whim of the CC companies.
No you arent a capitalist through and through. You are only one to the extent that your ox isnt gored.

Nopw us guys that pay our cc bills on time and have nice low rates and no fees and perqs are gonna get screwed as the banks spread the loss from deadbeats around.

And the gun ammendment is great

WildnowicancarryindenaliAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 04:58 PM   #27
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Still can't carry in Yosemite. But the place is so crowded I don't think there's room to draw anyway.

Quote:
Nopw us guys that pay our cc bills on time and have nice low rates and no fees and perqs are gonna get screwed as the banks spread the loss from deadbeats around.
Thanks for subsidizing me big guy!
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 05:23 PM   #28
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,789
Quote:
I am a capitalist through and through, but the credit card industry has royally screwed its card-holders over and over. And sadly the worse victims are those who can least afford the rate change from 12% to 29% at the whim of the CC companies.

Bull. Read the contract. If you don't like it, don't deal with that company. If it's a policy they all use, don't carry a credit card. There are no "victims", only people who don't read contracts or who think "it'll never happen to me..."
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 06:12 PM   #29
dcludwig
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Posts: 21
Quote:
No you arent a capitalist through and through. You are only one to the extent that your ox isnt gored.

Nopw us guys that pay our cc bills on time and have nice low rates and no fees and perqs are gonna get screwed as the banks spread the loss from deadbeats around.
ummm, you don't know me, nor how well I pay my credit cards or any of my other bills. I pay on time. I have paid off all but one credit card, and the one remaining card is at a 2.9%. However, I DO have friends who DO pay their CC on time, but did make the mistake of running their cards up to close to the limit... THAT is what made the CC companies jack their rates up. Got that? They made payments on time. IMHO, they should NOT have gone so far into debt, but does that in itself justify SCREWING them by doubling their interest rates? That type of blood-sucking from the CC companies is what has helped get a socialist like Obama elected. No doubt there are many out there who don't pay their bills on time or not at all. And no, I don't want to share that burden of having their debts forgiven. But why punish those who go into debt and honestly try to pay off those debts off by grossly increasing their interest rates?? Perhaps you think Madoff and Enron are shining examples of capitalism. Not I. Nor do I think those CC companies that gouge honest consumers promote the interest of capitalism. But perhaps the victims of Enron and Bernard Madoff are simply whining because their "ox got gored" btw, if you are such the financial wizard, I suggest you invest in a decent spell-checker!
dcludwig is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 06:19 PM   #30
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
However, I DO have friends who DO pay their CC on time, but did make the mistake of running their cards up to close to the limit... THAT is what made the CC companies jack their rates up. Got that? They made payments on time. IMHO, they should NOT have gone so far into debt, but does that in itself justify SCREWING them by doubling their interest rates?
Should have read the FINE PRINT in their contracts before they agreed to accept the card then

Quote:
That type of blood-sucking from the CC companies is what has helped get a socialist like Obama elected.
LOL....Obama saaaaaaaaaaave us LOL

Quote:
btw, if you are such the financial wizard, I suggest you invest in a decent spell-checker!
BTW,learn how to capitalize.

WildthatsallfrommeonthisthreadAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 06:51 PM   #31
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Funny how they can get away with wrapping so many seemingly disparate issues into one law. I often wonder why we would allow this.... besides we don't need any help pulling our threads off topic.

Quote:
thatsallfrommeonthisthread
Cheaper 'n a spell checker anyway.
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 07:45 PM   #32
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
I'm glad they split the bill. Even when the hoodwinking works towards my own views, I don't like how they tie in unrelated legislation into things pretty much guaranteed to pass. I think each thing should be voted on individually. I understand that some bulk legislation would be a tidal wave if it wasn't tied together in a single vote, but I really don't care if the have to work late hours and, God forbid, work the same hours we do without break to make sure that all legislation gets fair consideration.

That said, Kudos. It's amazing the commentary between say a Huffington Post comment thread and one here. Polar opposites and it's just mind boggling how anti's think that this means that any goon with a gun will be able to walk in and start firing away. The Brady's even went as far as to say that regular folk shouldn't have to worry about someone carring an AK47 around as they tried to enjoy the parks.

Do any of you plan on taking your AK47 into Yellowstone? Didn't think so.
Jofaba is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 08:06 PM   #33
rantingredneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,728
Unfortunately it appears as if the regulations will go into effect 9 months after signing by Obama. That means I still won't be able to carry when I'm up on the Blue Ridge Parkway here in a couple weeks.......
__________________
NRA Member
NC Hunter's Education Instructor

PCCA Member (What's PCCA you ask? <- Check the link)
rantingredneck is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 10:46 PM   #34
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 8,777
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?

Or are you correct that we will be waiting 9 months?!

My annual BRP run is set for the second weekend in June.

I'm ****** if I can't carry. I'll be the guy loading a subcompact Glock on the BRP exit ramp when we head to town for a meal, fuel and a room.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 11:47 PM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Is this thread about the amendment to carry in National Parks in the Credit Card bill, or about the Credit Card bill itself?

Some of you are to be commended for trying to keep this on topic. Others of you may well find your access to this forum, if not TFL, in jeopardy.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 09:39 AM   #36
tiberius10721
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2008
Posts: 228
how come we wont be able to carry in yosemite park?
tiberius10721 is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 09:51 AM   #37
rantingredneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,728
Quote:
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?

Or are you correct that we will be waiting 9 months?!
I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way I read it.

I doubt this legislation will undo an injunction that was filed against a regulatory change, but IANAL so maybe some of our resident legal eagles can weigh in there........
__________________
NRA Member
NC Hunter's Education Instructor

PCCA Member (What's PCCA you ask? <- Check the link)
rantingredneck is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 10:17 AM   #38
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
how come we wont be able to carry in yosemite park?
Good question, but I'm under the impression that the law is subject the state law. No?
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 10:46 AM   #39
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberious10721
how come we wont be able to carry in yosemite park?
Short answer: The new law forces National Parks to conform to State law on carry questions. In California, open carry is rather problematic. Under Concealed Carry, you must have a CA CCW. Only residents may obtain a CA CCW. CA does not recognize any other States permits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevens
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?
The injunction is against a regulation, not a law, so it stands. The law (a legislated act) overrides any regulation to the contrary. Hence, when the law goes into effect, the injunction (against the regulation) will be moot.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 11:19 AM   #40
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
The new law forces National Parks to conform to State law on carry questions. In California, open carry is rather problematic. Under Concealed Carry, you must have a CA CCW. Only residents may obtain a CA CCW. CA does not recognize any other States permits.
That's what I thought and since the average Schmuck in CA is denied CC, only special people will be carrying in Yosemite. My local Sheriff thinks I'm special, but not in the sense that he would issue me a permit.
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 11:54 AM   #41
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?
The law will become effective when it says it will be effective. If the credit card provisions are immediate, I don't see why the carry provisions wouldn't be, but then I haven't read the bill.

Color me pessimistic, but I don't see anything to prevent the Brady Bunch from going back to the same judge and getting an injunction against the law taking effect because the "environmental impact" hasn't been studied, either. :barf::barf::barf:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 12:22 PM   #42
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,172
The credit card provisions are NOT immediate.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 12:26 PM   #43
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
Color me pessimistic, but I don't see anything to prevent the Brady Bunch from going back to the same judge and getting an injunction against the law taking effect because the "environmental impact" hasn't been studied, either.
Unlike regulations surrounding a "change of policy" for the DOI (which include steps like an environmental impact study) the creation of a LAW on this subject has no similar steps or restrictions.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 12:37 PM   #44
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Color me pessimistic, but I don't see anything to prevent the Brady Bunch from going back to the same judge and getting an injunction against the law taking effect because the "environmental impact" hasn't been studied, either.
I think it was Antipitas who pointed out that the only reason the judge had jurisdiction in the first place, was that it was a rule or regulation, not a law passed by congress.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 02:10 PM   #45
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
What did the final text say, if anything, on the subject of loaded and unlocked long guns? And is there any provision for loaded open carry? Isn't it possible to LOC in unincorporated areas in most states? If so, why not in a National Park?Perhaps this should be another thread.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 03:15 PM   #46
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
What did the final text say, if anything, on the subject of loaded and unlocked long guns? And is there any provision for loaded open carry? Isn't it possible to LOC in unincorporated areas in most states?
The bill says, quite simply, that guns may be carried in accordance with the laws of the state in which the park or refuge is located.

Open carry is not specifically mentioned. Yes, LOC is allowed in many states, but discussing which states is IMHO somewhat outside the topic of this thread. Plenty of threads discussing LOC can be found on TFL and elsewhere already.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 07:33 PM   #47
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,483
I wonder if this will apply to US Army Corps of Engineers parks like Phillpott Lake, Buggs Island etc. or is that a different animal?
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old May 21, 2009, 08:53 PM   #48
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
I wonder if this will apply to US Army Corps of Engineers parks like Phillpott Lake, Buggs Island etc. or is that a different animal?
It's a different animal. The amendment calls out national parks and national wildlife refuges by name.

I expressed frustration about this earlier in the thread. The USACE operates parks at several popular recreational lakes in north TX, so the prohibition againt CCW will apparently continue.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old May 22, 2009, 02:30 PM   #49
SKN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 1998
Location: Oregon
Posts: 264
Just signed by the President so it's a done deal, but not until February 2010 when provisions of the entire bill become law.
SKN is offline  
Old May 22, 2009, 07:42 PM   #50
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
I think it was Antipitas who pointed out that the only reason the judge had jurisdiction in the first place, was that it was a rule or regulation, not a law passed by congress.
Federal judges have jurisdiction to hear cases contesting federal rules and regulations or federal laws. The issue in the Brady case involved whether an agency had followed the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act in creating a regulation; those requirements do not apply to laws passed by Congress.
gc70 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 09:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18187 seconds with 7 queries