The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 18, 2011, 05:58 PM   #101
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by C0untZer0
]It's just crazy
When people want something so badly what they're willing to give up to get it.
What -- exactly -- would we be giving up to enact H.R. 822?

And if you can cite something specific, didn't "we" already give it up when the Congress passed and the President signed the LEOSA? H.R. 822 is nothing but the civilian equivalent of the LEOSA. Were you vehemently opposed to that? How has the LEOSA resulted in any loss of rights to the citizens of the several states?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 18, 2011, 10:45 PM   #102
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
What -- exactly -- would we be giving up to enact H.R. 822?
Its easy enough for anyone to slip a line onto another bill that would modify H.R 822. The health care bill proves out right that our legislative body will pass laws and have no clue what is in them.... what would make this different?

Lastly if that’s not enough proof look where our legislative body has brought our nation to? Not the same place it was 20 years ago..... Want these good idea fairies coming up with more good ideas?
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 12:09 AM   #103
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog88
. . . .And how do you vote people out in other states that won't recognize reciprocity?
THAT, right there, is one of the reasons I don't like this bill. I have no doubt that, should this bill pass, then the next step will be "national standards," which will no doubt be characterized as "common sense standards." I don't want representatives from other states (against whom I cannot vote) deciding what standards my state should use to decide who does and does not get a CHCL.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 01:54 AM   #104
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
you know it might be possible to CCW in Illinois too when this does pass. Off-duty LEOs can carry there via LEOSA. This might be different, but federal law trumps state law.

as far as the standard national test or guidelines...I feel this assessment is way off base Spats. Its just not about that, and I never see that happening. Certain things are always stateside: marriages, driving, local state laws, etc.

You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 06:36 AM   #105
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Here in CT you go through a background check,a class, and live fire. That is a "national standard" I can live with. Heck, I did it to get my carry permit. That was the purpose. I didn't think it was overbearing or out of line. Is that a form of gun control that scares people? It's common sense. Show me you ain't mental, or a felon, sit in class and learn about firearm laws and show you can use one. Outrageous! Now that I think about it , I'm gonna turn my permit in on Monday. Ok, maybe not
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 07:07 AM   #106
American Made
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
So in my opinion, since my state doesn't offer reciprocity and the others surrounding it are of the same mind, essentially pinning me and my right to carry to the confines of this State border, I turn to the federal government to help fix what I consider wrong.
__________________

I have the utmost sympathy for those living in places run by socialist thugs! I've been blessed in never have been in that situation - like I said - most of what we deal with are federal laws. In my case, I want my State to side with it's residents and NULLIFY federal laws. And many here forget that many/All ? States have State constitutions on firearm issues. I know Idaho Statutes spells out the CCW issue very well:

18-3302. Issuance of licenses to carry concealed weapons. (1) The sheriff of a county, on behalf of the state of Idaho, shall, within ninety (90) days after the filing of an application by any person who is not disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under state or federal law, issue a license to the person to carry a weapon concealed on his person within this state. For licenses issued before July 1, 2006, a license shall be valid for four (4) years from the date of issue. For licenses issued on or after July 1, 2006, a license shall be valid for five (5) years from the date of issue. The citizen's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied to him, unless one (1) of the following applies....................................

CAUTION: Federal law and state law on the possession of weapons and firearms differ. If you are prohibited by federal law from possessing a weapon or a firearm, you may be prosecuted in federal court. A state permit is not a defense to a federal prosecution.

(17) The attorney general is authorized to negotiate reciprocal agreements with other states related to the recognition of licenses to carry concealed weapons. The Idaho state police shall keep a copy and maintain a record of all such agreements, which shall be made available to the public.



Can opposing states or the federal government decide that each individual must buy health insurance or any other product for that matter? What limits them from doing that? Is it that perhaps they weren't delegated such powers in the Constitution?

What limits the power of the federal government?

Last edited by American Made; November 19, 2011 at 07:21 AM.
American Made is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 07:41 AM   #107
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
icedog88

Here in CT you go through a background check,a class, and live fire. That is a "national standard" I can live with. Heck, I did it to get my carry permit. That was the purpose. I didn't think it was overbearing or out of line. Is that a form of gun control that scares people? It's common sense. Show me you ain't mental, or a felon, sit in class and learn about firearm laws and show you can use one. Outrageous! Now that I think about it , I'm gonna turn my permit in on Monday. Ok, maybe not
No that is a bearable standard.

In fact it is so easy that the GAO/Comptroller will most likely find it to not be adequate, and that CT needs much more stringent regulations.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 08:47 AM   #108
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Well, what other regulations do you actually see being imposed? Because surely it's right there in the middle or perhaps even near the top of what is required by most states. As far as this perception that gov is out to stick it to us every chance they get, well, I'll go put the tin foil in my hardhat and line my house with egg cartons this afternoon.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 09:09 AM   #109
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
icedog88

Well, what other regulations do you actually see being imposed? Because surely it's right there in the middle or perhaps even near the top of what is required by most states. As far as this perception that gov is out to stick it to us every chance they get, well, I'll go put the tin foil in my hardhat and line my house with egg cartons this afternoon.
Your probably right.
We really have no evidence that any one is trying to take our 2nd amendment rights from us.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 09:35 AM   #110
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Quote:
Your probably right.
We really have no evidence that any one is trying to take our 2nd amendment rights from us.
I see we are going to extremes again. Good gracious. Maybe the EXTRA THICK foil!
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 09:39 AM   #111
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
. . . .as far as the standard national test or guidelines...I feel this assessment is way off base Spats. Its just not about that, and I never see that happening. Certain things are always stateside: marriages, driving, local state laws, etc.
Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off. Even in my lifetime, the federal government has expanded its power fairly dramatically. The 20th century represented a huge expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Frankly, I see no reason to expect anything other than a push for national standards. Right after the Tuscon/Gifford shooting, there was a push to ban "assault clips." Right after 9/11, the TSA was formed, and airport security was taken out of the hands of the states. Mind you, I'm not saying that this bill is a tragedy on the scale of 9/11. What I'm saying is this: the standard federal response to any problem, real or imagined, is to create a solution on the national level, standardize it, and take it out of the hands of the states.

And in spite of the anti-gun opposition to this bill, I would respectfully suggest that one of them will come to the grand conclusion that fairly extensive training should be required for anyone to carry a gun anywhere (except LEO, of course), thus making it cost prohibitive to get a CCL.

I've seen many comparisons with CCLs and driver's licenses or marriage licenses. They are wholly different things. Marriage licenses are public records. CCLs are not. States recognize other state's marriages, not their marriage licenses. The license is merely evidence of the state's approval.

As for DLs, well, if we treated firearms like we treat cars: (1) I could buy a gun with no license at all; (2) I would be allowed to fire my guns on private property all I want with no license; (3) Anybody could buy all the cars they wanted, at any age, with no restriction except the budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.
I've never said that everything the feds do is bad. In fact, I'd call it one of the best governments in the world, overall. But this bill is a very bad idea.

And yes, I want as much control (to include the politicians) as I can get over the laws that affect my life.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 09:59 AM   #112
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
icedog88

I see we are going to extremes again. Good gracious. Maybe the EXTRA THICK foil!
Im not real sure what tin foil has to do with the topic?

Rather than tossing around the personal insults, why not explain why you think we need the interstate commerce clause in this bill.

Or why the GAO/Comptroller General should do the Audit/Study after enactment rather than before?

Quit eating the tinfoil, its bad for you.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 11:22 AM   #113
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Quote:
Quit eating the tinfoil, its bad for you.
Figured if I lined my stomach, I'd be doubly protected!
Nothing personal, just want to make sure I get in step with the populace that thinks the government is out to get me.

Commerce clause doesn't concern me, nor a study. I hardly think that the NRA which backed this bill, would have if they thought it was bad for CCW holders. I am pretty sure that when/if the Senate gets this bill, any adverse proposed attachments that are detrimental to the idea of this bill, would be squashed by most who back the bill as it stands.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 12:01 PM   #114
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
icedog88
Quit eating the tinfoil, its bad for you.
Figured if I lined my stomach, I'd be doubly protected!
Nothing personal, just want to make sure I get in step with the populace that thinks the government is out to get me.

Commerce clause doesn't concern me, nor a study. I hardly think that the NRA which backed this bill, would have if they thought it was bad for CCW holders. I am pretty sure that when/if the Senate gets this bill, any adverse proposed attachments that are detrimental to the idea of this bill, would be squashed by most who back the bill as it stands.
What populace thinks the government is out to get them?

Not me I assure you.
They already got us.

This bill is supposed to be an effort to get some of our rights back, because our government is out to get us and have been successful so far.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 03:46 PM   #115
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Spats, I guess we'll agree to disagree

Quote:
Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off.
The idea that when this bill passes all of a sudden it will be much more difficult in VA, TX, AK, and so-on to get a CCW is ludicrous @ best. It is just the farthest thing from the truth, so it needs to be clarified.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 04:08 PM   #116
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
youngunz4life

Spats, I guess we'll agree to disagree
Quote:
Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off.
The idea that when this bill passes all of a sudden it will be much more difficult in VA, TX, AK, and so-on to get a CCW is ludicrous @ best. It is just the farthest thing from the truth, so it needs to be clarified.
The Bill gives the GAO 12 months to determine the safest laws and regulations, and basis for denials for protecting the general public.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 04:31 PM   #117
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
Quote:
The Bill gives the GAO 12 months to determine the safest laws and regulations, and basis for denials for protecting the general public.
something like that is an automatic so they can close any loopholes as one example plus make it kosher
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)
therealdeal is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 04:52 PM   #118
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
therealdeal

The Bill gives the GAO 12 months to determine the safest laws and regulations, and basis for denials for protecting the general public.
something like that is an automatic so they can close any loopholes as one example plus make it kosher
What do you believe the GAO will determine?

Which state has the safest laws and regulations for protecting the public from legal CC ?
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 05:02 PM   #119
war_elephant
Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 70
HR822 is the only way that out of staters will EVER be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in NJ. Talking to someone who is more close to the situation in the NJ statehouse, I think they will still never agree to CCW for private citizens of this police state. The comment from one legistlator is that the only way that CCW will ever be permitted in this state (shall issue or realistic may issue) is for the federal courts to FORCE NJ to do so. Without national reciprocity, out of NJ CCW will never be permitted. Better for you to be a victim they figure.
Elections-? All of the same idiots that caused the problems in NJ, just got re-elected for another term. Light turnout, most people in NJ dont care, beaten down, accept their position as servants of their Govt rulers, I cant wait to sell and get out of this police state. Very soon, Very soon.
__________________
Marine, Retired LEO, Firearms Instructor, Life Member NRA Tea Party Member, and general all around trouble maker.
war_elephant is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 05:32 PM   #120
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
President signed the LEOSA? H.R. 822 is nothing but the civilian equivalent of the LEOSA. Were you vehemently opposed to that? How has the LEOSA resulted in any loss of rights to the citizens of the several states?
If I am understanding things right, places like NYC, DC, IL, NJ are going to be off limits. Just imagine the uproar when out of state folks are CCW in places like NYC, IL, NJ, DC and the residents of these places are not getting approved or just cant afford it because of price. I really do not see this happening.
Let me play the devils advocate here. What happens if NYC, NJ, IL, DC or any state that does not want any part of HB 822 just pass a law that there will be NO CCW permits issued. Then what recourse is there? Will SCOTUS here any grievances brought before them on 2 nd. amendment.

Quote:
Here in CT you go through a background check,a class, and live fire. That is a "national standard" I can live with. Heck, I did it to get my carry permit. That was the purpose
We do the same in FLA and for the longest time SC did not honor FLA's CCW permit stating our traing did not meet there standards. Go figure
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 05:37 PM   #121
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
The idea that when this bill passes all of a sudden it will be much more difficult in VA, TX, AK, and so-on to get a CCW is ludicrous @ best. It is just the farthest thing from the truth, so it needs to be clarified.
And what, precisely, makes it "ludicrous at best" to think that the feds will want to set federal standards? I'd call that naive, at best.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman

Last edited by Spats McGee; November 19, 2011 at 05:51 PM.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 19, 2011, 07:23 PM   #122
American Made
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.
------------------------------------------------

I dare not speak for my fellow Marine brethren, but as far as I'm concerned, I think you may be surprised to discover how much more similar-minded we are in thought than different. I will not dispute for one moment that the American Civil War did to the federal/state relationship what many claim it did; I'll even go so far as to do you two better: there was some "watershed" movement at the beginning of the 20th century that allowed the feds to claim even more power for themselves, and then, of course, World War II and its immediate aftermath allowed the feds to consolidate that power, cement its standing, and extend it even more.

I absolutely believe in the "radical" notions of the right to secession and the right of a people to self-determination. If, God forbid, it ever came to something drastic, for myself, I know with whom I'd stand.

My kin are some of those brave "Yankees" who, some two and a half centuries ago, stood up to the tyranny of a foreign government by defending their homes, enterprises, and farms with their lives in the name of self-government and self-determination. The challenge they faced, and the risks they willingly shouldered, are on par with those we face today. Many of us carry on that same tradition. We want exactly what you want; it doesn't matter if our accents are different, or if our blood and our hearts are connected to a different homeland.

Perhaps I'm more amused by those around this country who feel such sentiments are entitled only to those who, by accident of birth or bloodline, happen to find themselves on one side of an arbitrarily-drawn geographic line; and those who feel that the proper resolution to the troubles in which we find ourselves is best addressed through the resurrection of old animosities which should remain buried in the past. I am definitely guilty of needling those who feel this way. But I think they do far more harm than good to our cause.

I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and from that time to this, understood the term is in plurality. This Country is composed of States; and when that Government which was established by those States, and that flag, which bears upon it's broad folds and stars, representing those States, is used for the purpose of coercing some of those States, I say my flag I took a bullet for has already been degraded.

The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles:

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

Last edited by American Made; November 19, 2011 at 07:34 PM.
American Made is offline  
Old November 20, 2011, 11:57 AM   #123
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
This isn't law and I don't expect it to be, but if it was it would give anit-gunners and the governor of Illinois another reason not to pass our own CCW law.

If Illinois wants to only issue to residents 21 and over, conduct a criminal background check with the county and national databases, and require an 8 hour class. I am OK with that.

Let's say the bill won't appease anti-gun politicians in Illinois minus those provisions (which it won't), instead of just being able to compromise and pass a bill stipulating 21 years of age, 8 hour training, & check... the anti-gun politicians can argue that under HR 822, passing a CCW law of any kind allows certain people under the age of 21, with no training and not having undergone a criminal background check to carry in Illinois.

It would be a hard sell.

When we argue this again in Illinois, I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-gunners mention HR 822 anyway... even though it isn't law, the spectre of 822 will be invoked...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 20, 2011, 06:12 PM   #124
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
countzero

Quote:
This isn't law and I don't expect it to be, but if it was it would give anit-gunners and the governor of Illinois another reason not to pass our own CCW law.
You might be missing the point and/or please don't listen to everything you hear. This same hogwash was being said when LEOSA was trying to pass(for decades). Someone said that on the thread. Is it true? maybe but I doubt it.

Federal law trumps state law. The passing of the bill(when it happens) will cause some other things to happen pretty immediately in my opinion whether just before, at the same time, or immediately after. I am confident - obviously there are people that disagree with me, but it is good we have a record of this thread for when this all eventually "goes down" - that when this bill passes it WILL NOT MATTER that Illinois states that they do not want people CCWing in their state. federal law will trump state law and IL will only be able to restrict residents like you.

To add further, I believe that the law will state the only CCWs valid for United States travel will be CCW issued from your home state. i do not believe someone from NV getting a non-resident CCW from UT will be covered(at least at first). Now if IL still says that they will not issue CCW for their home residents, that will be a sight to see but it seems you all would allow it.

To be blunt, the federal government very well might tell IL they have to allow their residents to participate in some fashion or another in this new program. Now, either the federal government truly is trying to steal people's rights, gain total control, and all of these other conspiracy theories, or they are going to just make CCW legal and do some good. By the way, no state has the get-go to say no when they DO pass this bill. Case in point when America decided that 18yr olds able to drink wasn't correct conformity. It was a state issue...well the federal government stopped highway money and a host of other stuff until each state bowed down and agreed to change the drinking age from 18 to 21(almost like a parent using tricks and tactics to out-wit a loved child).

Bottom line, I am either right or completely wrong. I am very confident that I am right. People should take it when we can get it and only time will tell.

Saying:

Quote:
I'll be the first to admit that our laws concerning gun ownership and carry in Illinois are bad - but they're OUR BAD LAWS

OURS !
is sad and disheartening. I like the fire but you guys(as in Illinois) obviously need some help because - as mentioned - 'get out and vote them all out' doesn't seem to be working, sort of like trying to get America to boycott the gas stations at this point.

all the best
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 20, 2011, 06:28 PM   #125
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
When the "standards" will be set by tge folks in DC, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., will those of you in favor of those bill be able to live with that?

The Federal gov't has screwed the pooch on EVERY single social program, every single interstate program, and every single gun law it has ever been involved with.

This won't make it easier, it will make it harder as states that are current somewhat "lenient" by anti groups will be politically forced to adopt the stricter new standards that WILL become part of the Federalization of your state's CCW laws

Seems way too many young folks do not remember LBJ and his "Great Society" and the subsequent downfall of American freedoms and lifestyles under the guise of more freedoms

Please, be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it!
oneounceload 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 11:34 AM.


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 0.16354 seconds with 8 queries