Sheild 521 said new york city wouldn't have to honor it
because NYC doesn't even honor NY state permits, is this true?
because NYC doesn't even honor NY state permits, is this true?
US Senate concealed carry bill gains support
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
This isn't a matter of NYC as a city refusing to honor NY state licenses. This is all operation of state law in PL 400. Simply put, the state law says that anyone who has an NYC carry license may carry throughout the state, but those who have NY carry licenses outside of the city must get what's called a "special endorsement" of their NY State license. Getting one is neigh impossible just like getting a NYC carry license as a resident, unless you're Senator Joseph Bruno.
The wording of the bill, assuming it is not changed, would seem to allow you, as an NY resident outside of NYC, to carry in NYC. The language of the law is pretty clear, that ANY state license will do. If you want to get technical, all you would need is a New York Premise license (which is shall-issue) and a license to carry from any state, and you're good to go carrying statewide. The "specific locations" as contemplated doesn't include entire cities.
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, may possess, transport, or carry (whether openly or concealed) a firearm, ammunition, or components thereof without any restrictions, registration, or licensing.
I would love for this law to pass. It doesn't force a "repeal", it just states that those state laws don't apply.
License
For many years Drivers License Reciprocity between states has been a given.
Now the Federal Government wants the states to have a Standard License designed by them. Several states are fighting it now but only because the states will have to assume the costs of doing it.
What makes anyone think the Feds. would not do the same or worse with the Carry License that states issue.
For many years Drivers License Reciprocity between states has been a given.
Now the Federal Government wants the states to have a Standard License designed by them. Several states are fighting it now but only because the states will have to assume the costs of doing it.
What makes anyone think the Feds. would not do the same or worse with the Carry License that states issue.
Lonnie Wilson said:
First, what you've posted is not what the bill says. It says:
You must still have a permit, you must keep your gun concealed, the laws are not notwithstanding if the state you are in issues permits, and if the state does not issue permits, the federal laws apply.
No matter how you look at this law, you are still subject to infringing law. It's a pig in a poke.
Woody
How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood
I know theres a few attorneys who frequent these boards so maybe they can help with this question. Isn't it illegal to prevent people from reciprocating between states? The whole reason why people freak out about gay marriage (those opposed to it at least) is that people could simply go to a state that allows it and then come back, legally married. Why can't I drive to Vermont, then start carrying without a permit? Isn't the whole idea of a federal government to provide reciprocity?
It isn't about reciprocity. You shouldn't need a permit to begin with. That is one of the benefits of the Second Amendment.
Woody
Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. B.E.Wood
Woody
Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. B.E.Wood
I had personally rewritten the code to give you an example of what you may be seeking. I did not intentionally change the language of the bill, I just rewrite it to where it applies to all possession, transport, carry, and ownership, without the need for license. It would wipe out assault weapons bans, magazine bans, state and local bans on certain kinds of ammo, and so on, and of course, the requirement for concealed licenses or carry licenses in general.
Insofar as the notwithstanding portion, if you carry outside of it, all it does is remove the federal protection.
We had people swear up and down that Vermonters (who have no license to issue and thereby be subject to the thing with the "national standard") would have to follow the federal statutes (which has a lot more restrictions than just the Vermont state statutes, which I believe only prohibit carry in courts and schools) or else be charged with a crime. This is not true, because the way not withstanding laws work is that it gives a zone of protection.
Personally, I liked last year's HR 1243 better. It gave Vermonters and Alaskans full carry ability across the US, and the wording is a lot better than the "national standard" crap.
Woodcli, we keep disagreeing on the issue because you believe that we should defeat pro-gun bills that don't do anything than repeal every federal, state, and local gun control law on the books. That any forward movement is somehow a "step back". I don't see how.
"you shouldn't need a permit for your rights"
will get me over a year in Rikers Island and a felony if I go home (2 NYC) for a visit with my gun....I want reciprocity.
After a couple of years of no blood in the streets the argument for full civil rights may be able to be argued in court.
There have been people who have sued NY claiming violation of the 2nd Amendent.
If they had won there wouldn't be this problem
will get me over a year in Rikers Island and a felony if I go home (2 NYC) for a visit with my gun....I want reciprocity.
After a couple of years of no blood in the streets the argument for full civil rights may be able to be argued in court.
There have been people who have sued NY claiming violation of the 2nd Amendent.
If they had won there wouldn't be this problem
1] November 2006 makes this discussion meaningless.
2] Cop carry, will NEVER lead to national-carry or reciprocity.
3] Allowing the feds to start playing with state concealed carry is a very dangerous precedent that you will all regret.
4] The Federal government is not friendly to your gun rights.
5] The only reason cop-carry was passed was because those very same politicians in DC view cops as a different class of human being than regular civilians. It is this distinction that some people in this thread have a hard time understanding. Do not confuse the Federal government's passing of cop-carry as some how being a harbinger of national carry or national reciprocity.
5] Cop-carry was an extremely destructive bill to our RKBA cause. It further cemented the institutionalized and societal gap between civilians and authorities in respect to firearms. Rather than cop-carry, there should have been national-carry for ALL AMERICANS with no license...that way cops, who are off-duty civilians would still get to carry everywhere. But, as you can see - that didn't happen because some people see a difference significant enough between civilians and police officers to deny civilians this "privilege" ....
It wasn't even on the table. It wasn't even in their mind.
Think about that.
Then talk to me about elitism.
2] Cop carry, will NEVER lead to national-carry or reciprocity.
3] Allowing the feds to start playing with state concealed carry is a very dangerous precedent that you will all regret.
4] The Federal government is not friendly to your gun rights.
5] The only reason cop-carry was passed was because those very same politicians in DC view cops as a different class of human being than regular civilians. It is this distinction that some people in this thread have a hard time understanding. Do not confuse the Federal government's passing of cop-carry as some how being a harbinger of national carry or national reciprocity.
5] Cop-carry was an extremely destructive bill to our RKBA cause. It further cemented the institutionalized and societal gap between civilians and authorities in respect to firearms. Rather than cop-carry, there should have been national-carry for ALL AMERICANS with no license...that way cops, who are off-duty civilians would still get to carry everywhere. But, as you can see - that didn't happen because some people see a difference significant enough between civilians and police officers to deny civilians this "privilege" ....
It wasn't even on the table. It wasn't even in their mind.
Think about that.
Then talk to me about elitism.
gunsmith:
You must be wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. That is why there are no restrictive gun laws in this country and will never be. If you think that there are, it must be something wrong with your thinking.
Bach did not sue New York State claiming that the State violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals by not issuing non-resident permits. That is why there was no such case as Bach v. Pataki. Obviously, then, Judge Mordue could not have ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to keep and bear arms to any individual.
Had any of those things happened, they would have infringed our Second Amendment rights. So, again obviously, they did not happen and there is no need for federal law requiring national concealed carry reciprocity. That is also why such a law would set a bad precedent: it would allow the federal government to enact laws that affect the Second Amendment for the very first time. If the federal government were allowed to do it even this one time, the federal government would have the precedent to do it again. That must not be allowed to happen.
When 1934 comes, for example, the federal government might even regulate machine guns in violation of the Second Amendment. In 1912 the federal government might not object to New York City's enactment of the Sullivan Law. The federal government might even make laws concerning the sale, purchase, transfer, and transportation of firearms and ammunition.
All that could happen if we supported even an apparently harmless and useful law that would allow people with a CWP from any state to travel to any other state without becoming criminals. It is far better for States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, and others to criminalize citizens of other parts of the United States who want to travel in their own country. (That, by the way, is States Rights. It's why the Civil War never happened, why the Emancipation Proclamation was never issued, and why slavery is legal everywhere in this country.)
It is why none of the people who talk about the sanctity of the Second Amendment have a concealed weapons permit. They know that if they even applied for a CWP they would be weakening the Second Amendment.
No offense intended, but you must learn to think better if you intend to argue with people who understand the Second Amendment's purity. A good way to improve your thought processes would be to study their messages and compare their thinking to what happens in the real world. Then you too will be able to wear the Second Amendment as your shield of virtue. It will help you understand why a law that helps you is in fact an attack on your liberties. Sarah Brady is giving you a small Milky Way
while withholding the nuts. What is gun ownership without nuts?
You must be wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. That is why there are no restrictive gun laws in this country and will never be. If you think that there are, it must be something wrong with your thinking.
Bach did not sue New York State claiming that the State violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals by not issuing non-resident permits. That is why there was no such case as Bach v. Pataki. Obviously, then, Judge Mordue could not have ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to keep and bear arms to any individual.
Had any of those things happened, they would have infringed our Second Amendment rights. So, again obviously, they did not happen and there is no need for federal law requiring national concealed carry reciprocity. That is also why such a law would set a bad precedent: it would allow the federal government to enact laws that affect the Second Amendment for the very first time. If the federal government were allowed to do it even this one time, the federal government would have the precedent to do it again. That must not be allowed to happen.
When 1934 comes, for example, the federal government might even regulate machine guns in violation of the Second Amendment. In 1912 the federal government might not object to New York City's enactment of the Sullivan Law. The federal government might even make laws concerning the sale, purchase, transfer, and transportation of firearms and ammunition.
All that could happen if we supported even an apparently harmless and useful law that would allow people with a CWP from any state to travel to any other state without becoming criminals. It is far better for States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, and others to criminalize citizens of other parts of the United States who want to travel in their own country. (That, by the way, is States Rights. It's why the Civil War never happened, why the Emancipation Proclamation was never issued, and why slavery is legal everywhere in this country.)
It is why none of the people who talk about the sanctity of the Second Amendment have a concealed weapons permit. They know that if they even applied for a CWP they would be weakening the Second Amendment.
No offense intended, but you must learn to think better if you intend to argue with people who understand the Second Amendment's purity. A good way to improve your thought processes would be to study their messages and compare their thinking to what happens in the real world. Then you too will be able to wear the Second Amendment as your shield of virtue. It will help you understand why a law that helps you is in fact an attack on your liberties. Sarah Brady is giving you a small Milky Way
thanks!It would be soooo great to be able to visit home and carry protection.
I have seen 30 people attacking one person in NYC, I have seen demented
homeless attacking people with a knife because the little voices told them to.
I want reciprocity!
Sorry gunsmith:
"(a) In General- 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 any 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) Limitations-
`(1) IN GENERAL- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms [i.e. NYS], a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.
S 400.00
6)...A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not
otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective
throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the
city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by
the police commissioner of that city...
A NYS Permit is NOT valid in NYC, therefore NO OTHER state's permit will be valid in NYC either.
"(a) In General- 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 any 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) Limitations-
`(1) IN GENERAL- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms [i.e. NYS], a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.
S 400.00
6)...A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not
otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective
throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the
city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by
the police commissioner of that city...
A NYS Permit is NOT valid in NYC, therefore NO OTHER state's permit will be valid in NYC either.
but wouldn't reciprocity
force NYC to recognize ccw's?
could other states stop have reciprocity for NY drivers licensces? (SIC) in retaliation?
force NYC to recognize ccw's?
could other states stop have reciprocity for NY drivers licensces? (SIC) in retaliation?
shield20
I know where you're coming from, my brother was NYPD and latteralled elsewhere.
I told him about FOPA and he assured me it would still mean a few nights in jail (at the very least) but Lonnie addressed your concern earlier in the thread.
This isn't a matter of NYC as a city refusing to honor NY state licenses. This is all operation of state law in PL 400. Simply put, the state law says that anyone who has an NYC carry license may carry throughout the state, but those who have NY carry licenses outside of the city must get what's called a "special endorsement" of their NY State license. Getting one is neigh impossible just like getting a NYC carry license as a resident, unless you're Senator Joseph Bruno.
The wording of the bill, assuming it is not changed, would seem to allow you, as an NY resident outside of NYC, to carry in NYC. The language of the law is pretty clear, that ANY state license will do. If you want to get technical, all you would need is a New York Premise license (which is shall-issue) and a license to carry from any state, and you're good to go carrying statewide. The "specific locations" as contemplated doesn't include entire cities.
I know where you're coming from, my brother was NYPD and latteralled elsewhere.
I told him about FOPA and he assured me it would still mean a few nights in jail (at the very least) but Lonnie addressed your concern earlier in the thread.
This isn't a matter of NYC as a city refusing to honor NY state licenses. This is all operation of state law in PL 400. Simply put, the state law says that anyone who has an NYC carry license may carry throughout the state, but those who have NY carry licenses outside of the city must get what's called a "special endorsement" of their NY State license. Getting one is neigh impossible just like getting a NYC carry license as a resident, unless you're Senator Joseph Bruno.
The wording of the bill, assuming it is not changed, would seem to allow you, as an NY resident outside of NYC, to carry in NYC. The language of the law is pretty clear, that ANY state license will do. If you want to get technical, all you would need is a New York Premise license (which is shall-issue) and a license to carry from any state, and you're good to go carrying statewide. The "specific locations" as contemplated doesn't include entire cities.
If its gaining support then its only because a few Senators are realizing they can attached a thing that says all firearms must be registered in a national database inorder to comply.
But then they will leave the wording vague or state that all firearms must be registered even if you don't intend to carry across state lines.
Oh, then they can attach the AWB2 on the bottom of the bill. Along with the .50 bill. Oh, and the ammunition tax.
Its really great, we can call it the "Right to Bear Arms Across the Country Act of 2007." It has a nice ring doesn't it? Whats more patriotic than the right to bear arms eh? Of course that must pass, it would be unconstitutional and unAmerican not to vote for it.
But then they will leave the wording vague or state that all firearms must be registered even if you don't intend to carry across state lines.
Oh, then they can attach the AWB2 on the bottom of the bill. Along with the .50 bill. Oh, and the ammunition tax.
Its really great, we can call it the "Right to Bear Arms Across the Country Act of 2007." It has a nice ring doesn't it? Whats more patriotic than the right to bear arms eh? Of course that must pass, it would be unconstitutional and unAmerican not to vote for it.
In General- 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 any 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
It says "notwithsatanding". That means that as long as there is not state law prohibiting you from carrying, then you may. It doesn't mean the state laws don't apply. Infact, I fail to see what the point of this bill is.
Gunsmith,
Lonnie did not address my concerns.
I posted the portion of the NY law EXACTLY. I posted the new Senate Bill exactly. How anyone could read both, and think that some other state's permit, (or their own normal NYS permit) will suddenly become valid in NYC, when NO NY State permit is (except for very specific conditions, and specific retired LE), is beyond me.
1) NY State issues pistol permits. (NY City Police Commissioner issues NY City 'validity' permits.
2) NY State permits are typically not legal in NYC
3) The federal bill allows any state's permit to be used in NY state, under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.
Please explain what I am missing here.
6. License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city.
Such license to carry or possess shall be valid within the city of New York in the absence of a permit issued by the police commissioner of that city, provided that
(a)the firearms covered by such license have been purchased from a licensed dealer within the city of New York and are being transported out of said city forthwith and immediately from said dealer by the licensee in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip; or provided that
(b)the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted, or provided that
(c) the firearms covered by such license are carried by armored car security guards transporting money or other valuables, in, to, or from motor vehicles commonly known as armored cars, during the course of their employment; or provided that
(d)the licensee is a retired police officer as police officer is defined pursuant to subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or a retired federal law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who has been issued a license by an authorized licensing officer as defined in subdivision ten of section 265.00 of this chapter; provided, further, however, that if such license was not issued in the city of New York it must be marked "Retired Police Officer" or "Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer", as the case may be, and, in the case of a retired officer the license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons; or provided that
(e) the licensee is a peace officer described in subdivision four of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law and the license, if issued by other than the city of New York, is marked "New York State Tax Department Peace Officer" and in such case the exemption shall apply only to the firearm issued to such licensee by the department of taxation and finance[. A license as gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall not be valid outside the city or county, as the case may be, where issued.
Lonnie did not address my concerns.
I posted the portion of the NY law EXACTLY. I posted the new Senate Bill exactly. How anyone could read both, and think that some other state's permit, (or their own normal NYS permit) will suddenly become valid in NYC, when NO NY State permit is (except for very specific conditions, and specific retired LE), is beyond me.
1) NY State issues pistol permits. (NY City Police Commissioner issues NY City 'validity' permits.
2) NY State permits are typically not legal in NYC
3) The federal bill allows any state's permit to be used in NY state, under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.
Please explain what I am missing here.
6. License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city.
Such license to carry or possess shall be valid within the city of New York in the absence of a permit issued by the police commissioner of that city, provided that
(a)the firearms covered by such license have been purchased from a licensed dealer within the city of New York and are being transported out of said city forthwith and immediately from said dealer by the licensee in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip; or provided that
(b)the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted, or provided that
(c) the firearms covered by such license are carried by armored car security guards transporting money or other valuables, in, to, or from motor vehicles commonly known as armored cars, during the course of their employment; or provided that
(d)the licensee is a retired police officer as police officer is defined pursuant to subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or a retired federal law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who has been issued a license by an authorized licensing officer as defined in subdivision ten of section 265.00 of this chapter; provided, further, however, that if such license was not issued in the city of New York it must be marked "Retired Police Officer" or "Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer", as the case may be, and, in the case of a retired officer the license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons; or provided that
(e) the licensee is a peace officer described in subdivision four of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law and the license, if issued by other than the city of New York, is marked "New York State Tax Department Peace Officer" and in such case the exemption shall apply only to the firearm issued to such licensee by the department of taxation and finance[. A license as gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall not be valid outside the city or county, as the case may be, where issued.
Neo-Luddite
Member
"If its gaining support then its only because a few Senators are realizing they can attached a thing that says all firearms must be registered in a national database inorder to comply."
Or any other of the varrious nasty consequences. I'm in Illinois, the land of no issue, and someone is waiting in the tall grass to attach something in the dead of night to this that will *uck everything up in a very serious way.
And believe me, the prospect of being able to carry in my home state on my PA permit is very attractive.
Or any other of the varrious nasty consequences. I'm in Illinois, the land of no issue, and someone is waiting in the tall grass to attach something in the dead of night to this that will *uck everything up in a very serious way.
And believe me, the prospect of being able to carry in my home state on my PA permit is very attractive.
It so depressing to me to read the responses on this. As I tried to point out in my "the people rose up and burnded down the Whitehouse in 1934" and as someone else pointed out "the 2nd is why no gun control laws were passed in 1934, 1968, etc", they ALREADY have the power to regulate guns any way they want to at a federal level, including a total ban or anything. If they can impose a total ban on MGs there's no difference between that and a total ban on handguns. If they can totally ban it, what limits are there on their power? None!
I know, I don't like this. The voters should have elected politicians who would never do such things. The Supreme Court should slap the politicians when the pols make a mistake. Law enforcement should refuse to enforce these laws when the Supreme Court makes a mistake. There should be massive (peaceful) protests and civil disobedience when they make a mistake. Etc. But you know what NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS HAS HAPPENED.
Within our reality this law is all positive.
I know, I don't like this. The voters should have elected politicians who would never do such things. The Supreme Court should slap the politicians when the pols make a mistake. Law enforcement should refuse to enforce these laws when the Supreme Court makes a mistake. There should be massive (peaceful) protests and civil disobedience when they make a mistake. Etc. But you know what NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS HAS HAPPENED.
Within our reality this law is all positive.
I must disagree with you, Liberal Gun Nut. There is an active and vociferous movement in this country to unfetter the Right to Keep and Bear Arms(among other rights) and this is a diversion, or an attempt to placate those active in the quest to force Congress and the Court to abide the Constitution. There is no other reason for this bill or any bill like it. It is meant to shut us up.
The fewer of us crying out for the Constitution, the easier it will be for those opposed to the Constitution to wipe us out.
There will be no removal of any infringements to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms if this bill passes. All the law already on the books will stay in place, and one trip-up, one little oopsie, and down you go. This is in no way more freedom. It is more opportunity for you to get screwed out of your freedom to exercise your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Our rights are akin to our skin. Just as our skin shields us from the elements, so do our rights shield us from subjugation. Don't eat your own skin to satisfy your hunger. Doesn't matter how full you feel, you'll soon die of the first little microbe to come along. We've Already got too many microbial infringements gnawing holes in our skin now. Get rid of those infringements and you'll have all the freedom you could possibly consume.
Woody
You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
The fewer of us crying out for the Constitution, the easier it will be for those opposed to the Constitution to wipe us out.
There will be no removal of any infringements to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms if this bill passes. All the law already on the books will stay in place, and one trip-up, one little oopsie, and down you go. This is in no way more freedom. It is more opportunity for you to get screwed out of your freedom to exercise your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Our rights are akin to our skin. Just as our skin shields us from the elements, so do our rights shield us from subjugation. Don't eat your own skin to satisfy your hunger. Doesn't matter how full you feel, you'll soon die of the first little microbe to come along. We've Already got too many microbial infringements gnawing holes in our skin now. Get rid of those infringements and you'll have all the freedom you could possibly consume.
Woody
You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
<quote>It says "notwithsatanding". That means that as long as there is not state law prohibiting you from carrying, then you may. It doesn't mean the state laws don't apply. Infact, I fail to see what the point of this bill is.<quote>
Notwithstanding means "despite". This is fresh from the dictionary and it indicates that regardless of what the state law says....
Notwithstanding means "despite". This is fresh from the dictionary and it indicates that regardless of what the state law says....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked