| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 6603.1 | Thumbs down even as tempting as it is... | PEAKS::OAKEY | | Thu Mar 27 1997 16:41 | 135 |
| Lemme see, it penalizes Vermonters (who don't need permits) and actually
encourages them to come up with a permit system so they can carry in other
states (you need a state permit to carry in other states).
It perpetuates the two class system of law enforcement and non-law enforcement
(law enforcement and ex-law enforcement don't need any permits).
Seeing that we're already dealing with a principle compromised (given the 2nd we
shouldn't even have to discuss stuff like this...), it kinda depends on where
you draw the line; my take is that since we always point to Vermont as the
perfect example state, I don't think we should shoot ourselves in the foot by
encouraging them to come up with a permit system so they can carry in other
states...
This won't be the first time that I've disagreed with the NRA, and I'm sure it
won't be the last. :-)
Roak
Text of HR339 from http://thomas.loc.gov/
FILE h339.ih
HR 339 IH
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national
standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry
certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified
current and former law enforcement officers from State laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 1997
Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. HOSTETTLER,
and Mr. BARR of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national
standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry
certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified
current and former law enforcement officers from State laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.
[Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, [<-Italic]
SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED
FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 926A the following:
`Sec. 926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
firearms by nonresidents
`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or
political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by
Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued
by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed
firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry
in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or
destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
`(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry
concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the
State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a
concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a
license or permit.
`(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to
carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a
concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention
facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting
of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a
professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a
portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense
alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the
sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent
expressly permitted by State law.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the
following:
`926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
firearms by nonresidents.'.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING
OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 926B, as added by section 1(a)
of this Act, the following:
`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and
former law enforcement officers
`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State
or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a
qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified former law
enforcement officer and who is carrying appropriate written
identification of such status may carry a concealed handgun.
`(b) As used in this section:
`(1) The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an
officer, agent, or employee of a public agency who--
`(A) is a law enforcement officer;
`(B) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in
the course of duty;
`(C) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency; and
`(D) meets such requirements as have been established by
the agency with respect to firearms.
`(2) The term `qualified former law enforcement officer'
means an individual who--
`(A) retired from service with a public agency as a law
enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental
disability;
`(B) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified
law enforcement officer;
`(C) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
retirement plan of the agency;
`(D) meets such requirements as have been established by
the State in which the individual resides with respect to
training in the use of firearms; and
`(E) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
`(3) The term `law enforcement officer' means an individual
authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of
law, and includes corrections, probation, parole, and judicial
officers.
`(4) The term `appropriate written identification' means,
with respect to an individual, a document which--
`(A) was issued to the individual by the public agency
with which the individual serves or served as a law
enforcement officer; and
`(B) identifies the holder of the document as a current
or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
amended by inserting after the item added by section 1(b) of this
Act the following:
`926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and
former law enforcement officers.'.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
|
| 6603.2 | | SALEM::PAPPALARDO | | Thu Mar 27 1997 16:46 | 20 |
|
GONH (Gun Owners of New Hampshire) proposed doing something similar to
this but not onas big of a scale. They were considering reciprocating
the abutting states to NH (Mass, Vermont, & Maine) pistol permits. It
seemed to die out though. I know there is new legislature to pass a 10
year permit for residents and 4 year for non-resident.
re.0
Your colleague's statement of "It's a states rights issue" can be
true in a positive manner. The state you live in is responsible to do
all the checking to approve your permit. Why should we pay another state
to do the same exact thing and add another record to be carried on their
books which in turn calls for additional people to maintain (Big $$$$).
As long as the state your traveling in/through issues permits to their
residents there shouldn't be a problem recognizing another states issued
permit. Your home state should be the controller of issued permit to
carry, IMHO!
Guy
|
| 6603.3 | I'm open to persuasion | EPS::BIONDI | Guns, The Teeth of Liberty | Thu Mar 27 1997 18:10 | 32 |
| Hmmm,
This is very interesting. I'm not so sure that I like the feds
jumping in on this. Like has been said, very tempting. Normally we
complain about federal government mandates to states. Is that what we
are asking here?
"Well, we want to carry our guns in your state and if you don't let
us we'll get that big guy over there to make you!"
1. Would this law focus the concealed carry issue as a federally
controlled issue? If so,
2. Then wouldn't the states be giving up some of their power?
3. If concealed carry becomes a federally controlled matter, would it
not be easier to revoke the whole right or privelege altogether, seeing
that there would not be a necessary process involving 50 seperate
jurisdictions to effect a total elimination?
4. How does the federal law proposed here dovetail with 50 states laws
that must be satisfied?
5. I used to think that a federal carry law would be a good thing, but
now I'm not so sure. I don't think I like having another federal
registration card in my wallet.
I'm lookin forward to what everybody else has to say on this one.
My mind isn't made up yet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
|
| 6603.4 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Mar 28 1997 07:45 | 18 |
| Three objections, mostly already mentioned...
- I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that law enforcement, current or
former, are any better at firearms handling than the average citizen. In
fact, all the studies I have seen indicate exactly the opposite - the
average citizen is better! Case in point: the big LA shootout of a couple
weeks ago. Spray and pray on a grand scale. And yes, we are turing law
enforcement into some kind of priviledged class, supposedly better than we
are. Sorry, don't buy it.
- We don't need this bill. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. Period. Repeal the illegitimate laws that infringe, rather than
passing new laws to counteract them. We have more than enough laws already.
- One stop tyranny. Just revoke all of the concealed carry permits at the
federal level. It IS nice to be able to point to other states and say,
"See? You're wrong." What do we do when that option is gone?
|
| 6603.5 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Mar 28 1997 07:52 | 5 |
| BTW, this further reinforces, in my mind, that Congressmen can't write a
decent law to save their life anymore. They have no more clue what our
country is supposed to be about than anybody else, less even. Or if they do,
they don't care. They DO know how to write drivel that will get them
reelected, at our expense.
|
| 6603.6 | I wonder --- | MINOTR::BANCROFT | | Fri Mar 28 1997 08:29 | 2 |
| Does "Law Enforcenent Officer" include old Military Policemen like me?
Do I get to carry my 201 file instead of a license?????
|
| 6603.7 | it works like a drivers license | NEWVAX::WHITMAN | gun control = 5% gun + 95% control | Fri Mar 28 1997 08:51 | 33 |
| re. .4
< weeks ago. Spray and pray on a grand scale. And yes, we are turing law
< enforcement into some kind of priviledged class, supposedly better than we
< are. Sorry, don't buy it.
What the bill stated, in effect, was that law Enforcement credentials would
be acceptable as a substitue for a State issued CCW, not that they were above
the law.
<- We don't need this bill. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be
< infringed. Period. Repeal the illegitimate laws that infringe, rather than
< passing new laws to counteract them. We have more than enough laws already.
Good point. I like it, but this is not reality today. It is a goal to
reach for, one we had and somehow about 1934 we lost and have continued to
lose...
<- One stop tyranny. Just revoke all of the concealed carry permits at the
< federal level. It IS nice to be able to point to other states and say,
< "See? You're wrong." What do we do when that option is gone?
Huh? The bill forces all the states to recognize CCW's issued in the
person's home state, there is NO federal permit system, there is NO federal
record of who has a CCW and who has not. This bill is supposed to provide for
CCW's to be treated the same as your driver's license (i.e. if your home state
issued one, then the 49 states AND DC must recognize it as valid)
I am opposed to a Federally issued CCW, but I'm in favor of the states
having to recognize my Florida CCW.
Al
|
| 6603.8 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Here's your sign | Fri Mar 28 1997 09:27 | 10 |
|
I am for this bill. I currently have a MA LTC and a NH pistol
permit. But I don't want to have to get a permit for each state that I
want to visit.
As to Vermont, they are no worse off with the bill than they are now.
Is your drivers license, a states rights issue?
ed
|
| 6603.9 | Vermonters are affected | NEWVAX::WHITMAN | gun control = 5% gun + 95% control | Fri Mar 28 1997 10:29 | 7 |
| < As to Vermont, they are no worse off with the bill than they are now.
Not necessarily so, as I believe Vermonters would have to get an affidavit
from their CLOE that they are not barred from concealed carry in Vermont.
Al
|
| 6603.10 | Bill of Rights ---> Bill of Privileges | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Fri Mar 28 1997 11:53 | 14 |
| Are you willing to concede that you need a permit to exercise your
"inalienable rights?" In what way are they inalienable if you need a
permit to exercise them?
What if they wanted you to get a permit to speak freely? What about the
right to assemble or petition the government for redress? Would you get
a permit for that too?
Article 1, Section 8 lists the things that the federal government was
empowered to do. There are 20 listed. Regulation of guns is not in
there. So where do they get this authority from?
If people are so willing to give up their RIGHTS... they'll soon not have
any! The Bill of Rights will soon become the Bill of Privileges.
|
| 6603.11 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Here's your sign | Fri Mar 28 1997 12:06 | 14 |
|
re .10
I don't concede anything. However, I know that nothing short of
armed insurgance will change the PRESENT laws, so I do grovel at the
feet of my local COP to get my permit. I see this new law as helping
me because I now don't have to get MORE permits.
re .9
So Vermonters are no worse off under the new law. They CAN'T carry
outside of VT now.
ed
|
| 6603.12 | Great input!! | NWD002::SCHWENKEN_FR | Surrounded by Gotcha's | Fri Mar 28 1997 12:13 | 8 |
| Wow, the responses are even better than I had hoped for. Keep it up!!
What's curious from where I sit is that this petition was included in
the NRA publication. This indicates that a lot of serious thought was
given by those folks. But since there are so many valid points against
it, why did NRA take a stand in favor of the bill? I understand that
there's a tug of war going on in that organization. Which side is
pushing for the bill, and why?
|
| 6603.13 | Let 'em know you care. | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Fri Mar 28 1997 12:16 | 13 |
| I believe there was a bill introduced in the House by Rep Shadegg and
cosponsored by Rep Ron Paul that would require every law passed by
congress to cite the section of the Constitution that gave them
authority to do so. I don't know what the number of it is, but you
should contact your representative and ask why he/she is not a
cosponsor. (I might also be comical to hear the excuse they give for
why they can't cosponsor a bill that affirms their oath of office.)
By contacting your representative and bringing it to their attention,
you'll let them know that the Constitution MEANS something and they
can't ignore it. If you can't do that... then we deserve the government
we get.
|
| 6603.14 | NRA being realistic with HR 339 | NEWVAX::WHITMAN | gun control = 5% gun + 95% control | Fri Mar 28 1997 12:44 | 27 |
| < What's curious from where I sit is that this petition was included in
< the NRA publication. This indicates that a lot of serious thought was
I think the NRA gets labelled as pretty hardnosed, however there are many
who think they NRA caves in too much. The NRA is an organization trying
desperately to keep the anti-gun statutes from eroding our rights any more than
they already have and where possible to roll back the existing laws to more
closely reflect the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
We didn't get to this point of disregard for the 2nd, 4th, and 10th
Amendments overnight and we will not peacefully get back there all in one
fell swoop either. I think this measure HR 339 is another step in the right
direction. Few of us have enough bravado to routinely flaunt the laws we are
so sure are unConstitutional because our pockets aren't deep enough to
sustain the court battle that would take years to have the Judiciary change
things.
Hr 339 does not make things any worse than they are today and when there
is no rise in death and destruction due to non-residents concealled carry, then
we are showing the non-believers they hvae nothing to fear from the law-abiding
whether they are locals or not.
The tough part here is learning the details of what each State we visit
requires of its CCW holders.
Al
|
| 6603.15 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Here's your sign | Fri Mar 28 1997 13:10 | 19 |
|
re .14.
> We didn't get to this point of disregard for the 2nd, 4th, and 10th
>Amendments overnight and we will not peacefully get back there all in one
>fell swoop either. I think this measure HR 339 is another step in the right
>direction. Few of us have enough bravado to routinely flaunt the laws we are
>so sure are unConstitutional because our pockets aren't deep enough to
>sustain the court battle that would take years to have the Judiciary change
>things.
Exactly!
I would like to be able to visit my relatives in Florida and bring
my own firearms with me. Today I can do that if I pay about 150 dollars
to get an out-of-state permit. With this bill, I can do it at no cost.
ed
|
| 6603.16 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Fri Mar 28 1997 13:46 | 19 |
| <<< Note 6603.10 by EDWIN::PINETTE >>>
> Are you willing to concede that you need a permit to exercise your
> "inalienable rights?" In what way are they inalienable if you need a
> permit to exercise them?
While most of us would agree that we should not need a permit
to carry concealed, we also realize that 49 states make it
a felony to do so. Once convicted of a felony, you no longer
have the rights of the law-abiding (personally I believe this to
be wrong, but that's another argument).
> Article 1, Section 8 lists the things that the federal government was
> empowered to do. There are 20 listed. Regulation of guns is not in
> there. So where do they get this authority from?
The authority would come from the "full faith and credit" clause.
Jim
|
| 6603.17 | It's not a federal function. | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Fri Mar 28 1997 14:08 | 16 |
| If it's a felony in a given state, that's a different story. That's a
state's right issue. They have the authority to mess with gun control
if their state constitution so allows.
We are talking about Federal authority. They have none. By elevating
the right to carry to the federal level, the states are abrogating
their own authority to regulate guns. It also flies in the face of the
10th amendment of the Federal Constitution.
The only way this power could legally be transferred to the Federal
government is for a constitutional amendment not only eliminating the
2nd amendment, but positively asserting the power to regulate guns in
Article 1, Section 8. Removing the 2nd is not enough!
But then... I'm not a lawyer. (Nor would I want to be.)
|
| 6603.18 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Fri Mar 28 1997 14:20 | 27 |
| <<< Note 6603.17 by EDWIN::PINETTE >>>
> If it's a felony in a given state, that's a different story. That's a
> state's right issue. They have the authority to mess with gun control
> if their state constitution so allows.
Uh, no they don't. The 14th Amendment extended all of the protections
and restrictions of the BoR to the States and their citizens.
> We are talking about Federal authority. They have none.
The Congress has the authority to enforce the "full faith and
credit" clause.
>By elevating
> the right to carry to the federal level,
This bill does not do that. It merely requires that each State
recognize a validly issued permit from another State. The same
as they would for a driver's license.
>It also flies in the face of the
> 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution.
So does the 14th, but since 14 comes after 10, 14 wins.
Jim
|
| 6603.19 | bring 'em on down, what's the problem? | NEWVAX::WHITMAN | gun control = 5% gun + 95% control | Fri Mar 28 1997 14:42 | 17 |
| < I would like to be able to visit my relatives in Florida and bring
< my own firearms with me. Today I can do that if I pay about 150 dollars
< to get an out-of-state permit. With this bill, I can do it at no cost.
Ed,
Why can't you bring your firearms with you? You just can't carry a loaded
firearm around the mall with you like you do at home. You can, however, keep a
loaded firearm in the car's glovebox or in a snapped holster though not on your
person.)
I travel a lot. Some people take golf clubs because they play golf, others
bring tennis rackets 'casue they play tennis. I bring handguns because I shoot
handguns... There are places I won't take them (i.e. Mass, NJ, & NY) but very
few.
Al
|
| 6603.20 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Here's your sign | Fri Mar 28 1997 15:45 | 4 |
|
The problem is that I want to carry them with me.
ed
|
| 6603.21 | The Anti Blank Check Act | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Fri Mar 28 1997 16:09 | 48 |
| There are 58 cosponsors. Is your congressman one of them?
If not, why not? Ask them.
--------------------------------
FILE h292.ih
HR 292 IH
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the
United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 1997
Mr. SHADEGG (for himself, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. WHITE, Mr. NORWOOD,
and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the
United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Enumerated Powers Act'.
SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF
LAW.
(a) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS ACT- This Act is enacted
pursuant to the power granted Congress under Article I, section 8,
clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted
to each House of Congress under Article I, section 5, clause 2, of
the United States Constitution.
(b) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT REQUIRED- Chapter 2 of
title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
102 the following new section:
`Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause
`Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite
statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the
enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with
this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of
Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect
any other available relief.'
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 102 the following new item:
`102a. Constitutional authority clause.'.
|
| 6603.22 | | HOTLNE::BURT | rude people rule | Mon Mar 31 1997 09:39 | 5 |
| <--maybe i read that wrong, but i'm confused about entry title:
anti blank check act
isn't that bill a "good" thing?
|
| 6603.23 | Another View | GRANPA::CULBERTSON | | Mon Mar 31 1997 11:29 | 18 |
| I choose to view this from another look. While I am for this
legislation, having gone through the process of acquiring my permit
to carry concealed, I would like to see a more stringent certification
process that would cover the breath of the nation. Having been around
firearms most of my life, their is a comfortable factor I consider
vary important. During the shooting portion, several of the folks hoping to
get their CCW, had never in thier lives handled a weapon. This was even
more in evidence when two of these folks dropped thier weapons to the
floor. We require a minium writen and road test with re-evaluations to
operate a car, maybe standardized test for CCW is not such a bad idea.
My worst fear is someone who has passed the certification process and
been granted thier CCW enters a situation where they may be required to
use thier weapon. I see someone panacked and emptying thier weapon at a
threat and hitting everybody but the threat. The devastation will
surely distroy the shooter and probably add a new importance to the
antis arsenal to ride the right of CCW.
len
|
| 6603.24 | defacto registration I fear | NEWVAX::WHITMAN | gun control = 5% gun + 95% control | Mon Mar 31 1997 12:11 | 29 |
| len,
I believe your concerns are a product of the anti-gun lobby's message of
gloom and doom.
I live in Florida. In 1987 Florida instituted the "shall issue" policy
where if you aren't disqualified due to police record or mental problems AND
you submitted a minimal proof of education (many CCW's issued to people with
only 2 or 3 hours classroom and NO range time) you will be issued a CCW. This
has been in effect almost 10 years (over 350,000 CCW's.) NONE of your fears
have been realized. It's just a "boogie-man", an unfounded fear.
Everyone I know with a CCW takes that responsibilty very seriously. Those
with no experience, like the people in your class, realize the danger of their
ignorance. They see the need for real training and time on the range with their
firearm. The short CCW classes stress that the students should practice and
regularly get some range time. Besides, just because you handle a firearm well
on the range is no indication you'll do as well under the stress of a gunfight.
As has been discussed in this conference many times, a Federal REQUIREMENT
of proof of training IS defacto registration of gun owners. It also provides a
convenient mechanism for the Fed's to effectively outlaw all CCW, simply by
some bureaucrat (can you spell "Executive Order" ;-);-) changing the
requirements of recognized training. The medicine you suggest, I fear, is more
harmful than the disease it's supposed cure.
Al
|
| 6603.25 | | ALFSS2::HENDERSON_J | | Mon Mar 31 1997 13:01 | 15 |
|
Hi,
I agree with -1. Do not give an inch,do not allow anything,which would
compromise the cause for our freedoms. Any concession on the part of
opposition will simply be a trick to allow them to,more fully,define
your rights for you. Do not agree with them even on the most common
ground,remember they are capable of producing as many mirrors and as
much smoke as they need. If one of them says it is daylight,and you see
it is high-noon go out an check before agreeing. I do not trust them
and would concider anything they say to be a bold faced lie.
Joe
|
| 6603.26 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Mon Mar 31 1997 13:59 | 4 |
| > defacto registration
Insert *federal* - I would bet that this is not a side effect, but that this
is the goal.
|
| 6603.27 | Our imperfect World | GRANPA::CULBERTSON | | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:39 | 22 |
| Because of the current state laws that are predicated on Federal law,
the registartion argument is mute. Everytime you purchase any kind
of firearm you fill out a form full of declarations before a licensed
dealer will transfer a weapon to you. Several states are even requiring
that personal sales be handled through a licensed dealer for certain
weapons.
I share everybodies fears and mistrusts. With the current Governor
leaving office this year and the current leading (polls) candidate
and a anti person, that fear and mistrust has added extra girth to this
beast. I really wish that people had the ability to compromise on gun
related issuses. My point concerning someone not comfortable with a
weapon and then finding themselves in a jam, your quit right about all
the unknowns that are present, but I believe that I would be more
likely to shoot truer than someone who has shot thier weapon one time
in thier entire life. I plan to apply early for my renewal and I really
hate being lumped into groups with criminals because of the types of
weapons I own, nothing sets me off quit so fast.
Ever Vigilant
Len
|
| 6603.28 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Mar 31 1997 20:14 | 22 |
|
Hi Len,
The only problem with requiring people to pass certain tests before
exercising a "right" is that the system can be abused. Make the tests
too difficult or limit the ability to take the tests (only schedule
test taking at midnight saturday night when the moon is full, etc) and
you can essentially eliminate the right.
While at times the gun lobby's positions seem extreme, it's only
because they have given up so much only to be asked for more. See the
NFA (National Firearms Act) and GCA (Gun Control Act) for prime
examples. The NRA helped draft both of these laws in the name of
"compromise" only to be pushed furthur and furthur back.
You give an inch and they'll take a yard. I don't make deals when
it comes to freedom.
jim
|
| 6603.29 | Congress needs to justify it's lawmaking authority | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Wed Apr 02 1997 11:14 | 24 |
| Reply to .22.
Yes, I guess the entry title to 6603.21 is confusing.
In fact this bill is a good thing. It requires that every bill point
out where in the Constitution Congress has been given the right to
legislate. In other words, it forces them to justify each piece of
legislation with respect to how it conforms to the Constitution.
Many legislators now submit bills without any regard whatsoever for
whether it is Constitutional or not. They don't understand, or don't
care about the concept of limited government. They think they have a
"blank check" to legislate anything that comes into their heads.
This bill would make them think about it. It is a good thing.
All of you who have concerns for your 2nd amendment rights, as well as
all the other of your rights, should contact your Rep and ask why
he/she isn't a cosponsor. Since this bill exactly conforms to their oath
to support the Constitution, it might be instructive and amusing to see
what excuses they give you for NOT cosponsoring it.
|
| 6603.30 | they do whatever they want, regardless | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Apr 03 1997 09:29 | 6 |
| > This bill would make them think about it. It is a good thing.
Until a couple of years from now, when they've all forgotten it.
If they don't bother to think about whether it's constitutional, I don't see
how passing a law that says the same thing will help.
|
| 6603.31 | Legislators to be made aware of their limits | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Thu Apr 03 1997 11:24 | 18 |
| They won't be likely to forget it if each prospective bill needs to
pass this requirement before it can be considered. This would tend to
filter out the really bad bills which now, if they passed, are ruled on
by the Supreme Court. It would add an upstream constraint on lawmaking
that removes some of the Supreme Court's ability to legislate from
the bench.
If the bad stuff begins to be filtered out by the requirements imposed
by this law, they would either have to rewrite the prospective bill to
make it conform to the Constitution or they'd have to change the
Constitution itself to permit it.
And that... is what the Founder intended.
Otherwise... the sky's the limit, there are not constraints on laws, and
you have NO rights other than what the legislature permits (i.e. only
privileges.)
|
| 6603.32 | National ticket | GRANPA::CULBERTSON | | Tue Apr 29 1997 16:26 | 17 |
| Reply .28
The NRA would be my choice of any panel member brought together to auhtor
the steps and requirements including any associate costs to obtain a
CWW. Most states have a writen and a drivng test to obtain a license to
operate a vehicle in thier respective states. There may be a few
variances but most follow a close partern. My guess is this is to
facilitate inerstate travel.
Just an aside. VA. legislature approved the term for a CWW from 2 to
5 years. The Gov vetoed a local (Fairfax Co.) bill that would prevent
anyone from bring a weapon into a police department, even with a CWW.
Not a happy group of fellows (Girls to).
Sometimes things look better
Len
|