House expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity bill

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JBurns

Trump is still meeting a lot of resistance, but the country is moving in the right direction for the first time in a long time. This Bill is long overdue. There have been a lot of silly regional gun laws restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens for far too long. Freedom for all!

If it was good for the Feds to nationalize gay marriage rights it is good for gun rights as well. We should be legalizing freedom.

what planet are you on "dreamville, USA planet".
don't you understand that the vote you give to someone is a vote for them to take away your freedom
when was the last time you rode a greyhound, you got to have an id to board and buy a ticket
america is actually a shadow on north korea, the people you vote for learn from them and then use "security" so we must do this to provide for your safety, no difference then in north korea
i just can't believe how people still believe that santa claus is coming down the chimney at christmas time

a reply to: lordcomac

Same here, it would be a lot more enjoyable that is for sure. I would still probably wear hearing protection, since it is still decently loud

I should grab a .300 BLK upper for my AR and throw a nice silencerco can on it

I’m sure there’s a whole stinking bunch of democrats waiting to pounce on our right some more! They don’t want there voter base killing each other anymore them they do already. And that’s with illegal guns!! Imagine if they could buy then over the counter?? Chicago would have a lot of apartments opening up!!

originally posted by: Shamrock6
There is no state that is “no-issue.” There are some that are “may-issue” that are in effect no issue, but they would still be required to honor permits.

Good news for me then since the Supreme Court refused to hear the amicus brief filed by a New Jersey resident for 'shall issue' privileges.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You really should read the bill. There an anti mason clause.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
You really should read the bill. There an anti mason clause.

Not surprised, the harvest should be a challenge and not a cake walk.

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JBurns

Trump is still meeting a lot of resistance, but the country is moving in the right direction for the first time in a long time. This Bill is long overdue. There have been a lot of silly regional gun laws restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens for far too long. Freedom for all!

If it was good for the Feds to nationalize gay marriage rights it is good for gun rights as well. We should be legalizing freedom.

what planet are you on "dreamville, USA planet".
don't you understand that the vote you give to someone is a vote for them to take away your freedom
when was the last time you rode a greyhound, you got to have an id to board and buy a ticket
america is actually a shadow on north korea, the people you vote for learn from them and then use "security" so we must do this to provide for your safety, no difference then in north korea
i just can't believe how people still believe that santa claus is coming down the chimney at christmas time

What the hell are you on about?

I mentioned that we should all be more free and that this was solidifying our gun rights and you somehow get the exact opposite from what I clearly stated?

Don't act like such a tool.

a reply to: ArMaP

All 50 states allow concealed carry

How can they think that such a law would not violate the 10th amendment?

If a state wants to accept the permit from another state, fine. To force them to do so, not so much.

Good news, I guess. But it is already "lawful", under the C.O.T.U.S.

a reply to: Phage

Read the "10th amendment ". It wasn't a request, It was a law. ... The "States" didn't have a choice.

a reply to: murphy22
I've read it. Again, just a couple of minutes ago as a matter of fact.

Can you explain what you mean?

a reply to: Phage
I'll dumb it down for you. A mere State, does not have any authority, or business making any law/laws in violation of the US. Constitution... Pure and simple... To do so is treason. And should be considered as such.

a reply to: murphy22

Oh, I see, you're one of those who think any "infringement" is illegal.
Anyone who wants to should be able to own and carry any weapon they want. Any time, any where, any how.


I disagree. So does the Supreme Court. Maybe you should file an appeal to their various decisions. Oh, wait. There is no such thing as an appeal to a Supreme Court decision.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of treason, btw. It's in the Constitution.

a reply to: Phage

Well to be devil's advocate, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't fall in line with the constitution. Shall not be infringed is fairly clear, it shall not be infringed.

Regulations and restrictions tend to infringe.

a reply to: Vector99

Well to be devil's advocate, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't fall in line with the constitution.

Tell that that to the Justices. I'm sure they would be glad to hear why your interpretation of the Constitution is more valid than theirs. It is their job, don't you know.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Well to be devil's advocate, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't fall in line with the constitution.

Tell that that to the Justices. I'm sure they would be glad to hear why your interpretation of the Constitution is more valid than theirs. It is their job, don't you know.

I'd be more curious in their interpretation of the word infringed.

To me it's fairly clear, then again I tend to remain as unbiased as possible.

a reply to: Vector99

There are several examples of SCOTUS decisions on the matter.

But, to stay on topic. Given that the SCOTUS has said that states can regulate guns (and they have), do you not think that this attempt would be a violation of the 10th?

a reply to: Phage

You sneaky editor

But, to stay on topic. Given that the SCOTUS has said that states can regulate guns, do you not think that this attempt would be a violation of the 10th?

No, because the 2nd amendment is federal law regarding guns. Just my opinion though, I'm not a supreme court justice struggling to understand 27 words.

a reply to: Phage

I am full aware of the "legal" definition of treason. But we're a Republic, ruled by "law". Not a democracy, never have/has been. Your opinion doesn't count. It's not lawful or "legal". "Shall not be a infringed". ..A pretty simple concept. Doesn't take a "law"-yer..to comprehend basic English.