Jump to content
EX Carnival man

This doesn't sound like good news. Gun rights stalled for the year?

Recommended Posts

Well the budget looks as if it is A done deal. Evidently no sponsors or co-sponsors saw the need to use pro gun rights as A bargaining chip for their vote on approving the budget. That alone will allow bills to die in commitees.  There are too many other things being pushed by the administration, that will leave 2A bills on the back burner, Evidently the NRA is no stronger now then the past in DC.

Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to have my concerns as things drag on---I'm more concerned with the House more than the Senate (believe it or not). These guys are pissing me off because they ALWAYS have a vote by now on National  reciprocity but now it's not coming up---Gee, I wonder why? These guys (RINOS) are as bad as the Democrats and are freaking big government liars .

 

Tax reform should have at least been voted on---my goodness, that's the base of the Republican platform---a no brainer. Yet nothing happening...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not how I see it. 

 

Rushing things in the first 100 days is a bad idea. It entices the opposition to fight harder to prove they are not push overs, look what happened with all the "big ideas" so far. 

 

The huge wins have been changes of policy at ATF and related administration initiatives (yes I know they can change again later) and the SCOTUS stuff. The SCOTUS nuclear options use was a huge tactical mistake on the opposition side because they should have saved that in case a second judge was up for nomination, now it opens the door for changing the court balance much easier in the next 4 years. 

 

I much rather wait and see some of those pro-gun changes pushed closer to mid term elections when vulnerable sits can be pressured. I much rather see some court cases go to SCOTUS because that is far more influential long term then laws that can be changed at the drop of a hat. 

 

The carry law thing .. that is actually pretty bad when it comes to states rights and the wrong way to go about it in my view. Build a court majority, bring up the right cases and get it on the books that way for a long long time. Sure, longer harder fight, but the right way to win it, quick cheap wins never last. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love this:

 

 

 

 

Everyone realizes that Congress has quite a bit on their plates right now, but the reality is they always have a lot on their plates...

 

 

 

 

 

BS. The *******  work two or three days a week and spend the rest of the time fund raising in their districts and elsewhere -- anywhere but in DC.

 

 

 

 

 

The House Judiciary Committee has six more Republicans than Democrats. Get to work you f-ing bums. 

 

Edited by Maksim
language
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of the 2 gun issues mentioned, national reciprocity is more important than silencers.

 

There are also a plethora of other issues that are more important than those. National security is one. That encompasses border security, immigration, terrorism and many other things. You can't put those things on the back burner. North Korea by itself is a tremendous problem.

 

The first 100 day report card has been done since FDR. Many presidents had a very bad first 100 days. 7 states had seceded from the Union between the election of 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration. Fort Sumter was attacked and the remainder of the CSA seceded in Lincoln's first 100 days.

 

Trump's done okay AFAIC. 100 days is less than 7% of his 4 years. He got his SCOTUS appointment, started rounding up the most dangerous illegals, has sent a message to states who want to ignore Federal law, and has shown the world don't screw with us.

 

The SCOTUS appointment is probably the most important. It will affect this country for the next 30 years or longer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think this gun rights issue is a lot like the fight against cancer and Aids. There's just too much money to be made to find a cure. Here we have the 2nd amendment that's in the Bill of rights and the politicians in Washington can't get it right.

no

A minority of the states can't get it right.

A minority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more republicans in the house and senate than democrats.  Usually, they can say that the democrats wouldn't cooperate.  We now see who is the real problem. 

 

Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.

 

The most important thing for Trump to accomplish is getting the right people on the supreme court.  The second most important is term limits. 

 

Everything else is just gravy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of the 2 gun issues mentioned, national reciprocity is more important than silencers.

 

There are also a plethora of other issues that are more important than those. National security is one. That encompasses border security, immigration, terrorism and many other things. You can't put those things on the back burner. North Korea by itself is a tremendous problem.

 

The first 100 day report card has been done since FDR. Many presidents had a very bad first 100 days. 7 states had seceded from the Union between the election of 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration. Fort Sumter was attacked and the remainder of the CSA seceded in Lincoln's first 100 days.

 

Trump's done okay AFAIC. 100 days is less than 7% of his 4 years. He got his SCOTUS appointment, started rounding up the most dangerous illegals, has sent a message to states who want to ignore Federal law, and has shown the world don't screw with us.

 

The SCOTUS appointment is probably the most important. It will affect this country for the next 30 years or longer.

Individuals think we elect a king. Congress is the pace setter and everyone seems to omit that.

Herding cats...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think this gun rights issue is a lot  like the fight against cancer and Aids. There's just too much money to be made to find a cure. Here we have the 2nd amendment that's in the Bill of rights and the politicians in Washington can't get it right. 

 

And there are more making money off of it than you think.....  :popcorn:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no

A minority of the states can't get it right.

A minority

Just my luck I happen to live in a minority state. Had Clinton won that election I don't think it would have mattered what state we lived in. I remember the Clinton Assault weapon ban. Those were not fun days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no

A minority of the states can't get it right.

A minority

 

Meaning? 

 

 

There are more republicans in the house and senate than democrats.  Usually, they can say that the democrats wouldn't cooperate.  We now see who is the real problem. 

 

Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.

 

The most important thing for Trump to accomplish is getting the right people on the supreme court.  The second most important is term limits. 

 

Everything else is just gravy.

 

We did this little dance already back in 1995. SCOTUS ruled that without an amendment to the US Constitution term-limits are not happening at the federal level, and between the required supermajority and ratification, that's not going to happen. Politicians can provide all the soundbites and rhetoric their constituents want, but willingly put a limit on their own power? We can't even get these guys to give up the power of voting their own pay raises. You really think they're going to vote for something that severs them from the government teat?

Edited by Cereza
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my luck I happen to live in a minority state. Had Clinton won that election I don't think it would have mattered what state we lived in. I remember the Clinton Assault weapon ban. Those were not fun days.

That is the fundamental problem our country is enduring. Age.( maturity doesn't fit)

Every day, a new angle, a new bribe, a new possibility for personal gain. We were never met for career politicians.

 

But, of them, of whom would high road and vote themselves out of a career?

There in lies the fundamental problem. And this state is a barometer of that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you be more specific with your question?

I may have already answered it above

 

I won't dismiss something or someone because it or they are in the minority. I'll dismiss gun control because most of it is built on fallible arguments, but I'm with Hamilton on avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".

 

ETA: Allergy medication is making me fuzzy…  I guess my question is why do you think it's a minority number of states that are the problem, and not politicians (regardless of state) who stand to profit from continual disagreement on the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't dismiss something or someone because it or they are in the minority. I'll dismiss gun control because most of it is built on fallible arguments, but I'm with Hamilton on avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".

 

ETA: Allergy medication is making me fuzzy… I guess my question is why do you think it's a minority number of states that are the problem, and not politicians (regardless of state) who stand to profit from continual disagreement on the topic?

I understand.

Is it not the politicians of the state that make it malleable?

 

And to digress ^^^above visa ve states rights, does the constitution not effect all regardless of their zip code in this country ?

A country has a core. And this one is our constitution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to ask my friends here that argue about" states rights"

Should the states rights infringe on the freedoms of the citizens of country? Or in my opinion they should unhinge the rights of the resident citizens.

 

I believe that is referred to as freedom .

Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to ask my friends here that argue about" states rights"

Should the states rights infringe on the freedoms of the citizens of country? Or in my opinion they should unhinge the rights of the resident citizens.

 

I believe that is referred to as freedom .

Z

To me it is how they're going about it. Unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled that the states can impose "some" restrictions on the 2A. As much as we'd like it to, the federal government cannot say "don't infringe" because the court already said they can.

 

Instead the federal government is saying that one state must accept a certification from another. That's a clear violation of state's rights. This situation is compared to drivers licenses but I think there are differences. I don't know the legal underpinning of drivers licenses but I think it is voluntary at the state level. CCW is more about forcing an unwilling state.

 

Similarly the federal government can no longer extort states by threatening to withhold federal funding. That's why Trumps sanctuary city thing just got knocked down. Again federal funding for roads and schools and drinking age come up. I think these were both before the ruling was passed down.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly the federal government can no longer extort states by threatening to withhold federal funding. That's why Trumps sanctuary city thing just got knocked down. Again federal funding for roads and schools and drinking age come up. I think these were both before the ruling was passed down.

 

In fact, it was the last application of that technique before the legal prohibition. I was a senior in college when that happened. My Univ. was slated to receive a liquor license from both the city and State so that they could build a "rathskeller" in the Student Union building,,, a very difficult feat, given that the city itself had long been "dry" in significant ways, thanks to the presence of the WCTU (their national HQ was in that city). The city granted their liquor license, and was prepared to use "home rule" power to facilitate the state's liquor license.  But, during the summer is when the Feds did the "federal highway funds to raising the drinking age to 21" thing.  All of those plans disappeared in the blink of an eye.  No more "keggers" or "thumper parties" in the dorm rooms, either...  (previously the age for beer/wine was 19, but 21 for hard stuff). Now, it became 21 for everything. 

 

Unfortunately, I think it's the only thing to which the states will pay attention, as they did that last time. If it is "illegal" now, we need to reconsider that legality and bring it back as an option. It's the only thing that will deliver national reciprocity, and get the individual "resistant" states to comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this blocking of Trump's Executive orders is about the Constitution. It's all about politics! Of all the liberal Circuit Judges out there, surely

one will rule against anything Trump tries to do. This crap has to end now!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it is how they're going about it. Unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled that the states can impose "some" restrictions on the 2A. As much as we'd like it to, the federal government cannot say "don't infringe" because the court already said they can.

 

Instead the federal government is saying that one state must accept a certification from another. That's a clear violation of state's rights. This situation is compared to drivers licenses but I think there are differences. I don't know the legal underpinning of drivers licenses but I think it is voluntary at the state level. CCW is more about forcing an unwilling state.

 

Similarly the federal government can no longer extort states by threatening to withhold federal funding. That's why Trumps sanctuary city thing just got knocked down. Again federal funding for roads and schools and drinking age come up. I think these were both before the ruling was passed down.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your statement about states voluntarily accepting other states drivers licenses is valid.

 

On the other hand just imagine if you will a cash strapped state with a large number of federal highways running through it. What if this state decided that after a certain date they would no longer accept other states drivers licenses. The state could then offer a non resident drivers license for a nominal fee of $105 for anyone who wanted to drive through the state good for 2 to 4 years. A system like this could potentially generate millions of dollars for the state.

 

I wonder where the courts would come down on this? States rights or hindering interstate commerce? It sure would be fun to watch though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statement about states voluntarily accepting other states drivers licenses is valid.

 

On the other hand just imagine if you will a cash strapped state with a large number of federal highways running through it. What if this state decided that after a certain date they would no longer accept other states drivers licenses. The state could then offer a non resident drivers license for a nominal fee of $105 for anyone who wanted to drive through the state good for 2 to 4 years. A system like this could potentially generate millions of dollars for the state.

 

I wonder where the courts would come down on this? States rights or hindering interstate commerce? It sure would be fun to watch though.

That's already being done with trucks. For a semi truck to travel from state to state they have to buy a fuel tax sticker for that state. NY was the first state to pass that law. It generates huge amounts of money for the states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to ask my friends here that argue about" states rights"

Should the states rights infringe on the freedoms of the citizens of country? Or in my opinion they should unhinge the rights of the resident citizens.

 

I believe that is referred to as freedom .

Z

 

That is what incorporation is all about and the role the of SCOTUS as a third party arbitrator. We've had civil wars over the issue. 

 

If nothing else it is a hypocrisy issue. Lots of folks on the right complained bitterly about state rights over the last years on a number of issues. Maybe they were right maybe they weren't but we shouldn't wave that flag on some issues and then chuck it aside on other.

 

The other issue to be concerned about is the lower courts. If you pass a federal law like this it will be mired in the lower courts for years, this judge on SanFran throws it out then the Judge in NY thinks it is unconstitutional then it gets amended then .. bleh. Much better to work it the other way, get a friendly SCOTUS bring up a good case, have be the implicit law of the land and figure out the details after.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more republicans in the house and senate than democrats.  Usually, they can say that the democrats wouldn't cooperate.  We now see who is the real problem. 

 

Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.

 

The most important thing for Trump to accomplish is getting the right people on the supreme court.  The second most important is term limits. 

 

Everything else is just gravy.

 

 

I must be the only one against term limits because I feel it's another government created "decision making" proposition instead of an educated populace deciding what's best for the country. I tend to be a realist and lean toward pessimism when it comes to government and I feel that we've crossed the threshold where you can't legislate "common sense, truth and morality"---it simply does no good other than grant government more power. I don't blame the system I blame the idiots or citizens too stupid to have an interest [enough] to research truth and history instead of simply voting for free crap. Our Constitution has not changed, but the populace has---the "history changers" have done their job over a compliant, stupid populace. Term limits won't do any good but an educated populace will!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The carry law thing .. that is actually pretty bad when it comes to states rights and the wrong way to go about it in my view. Build a court majority, bring up the right cases and get it on the books that way for a long long time. Sure, longer harder fight, but the right way to win it, quick cheap wins never last. 

 

 

I agree with the states rights issue but the court stomped that when they went for the gay marriage laws. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The carry law thing .. that is actually pretty bad when it comes to states rights and the wrong way to go about it in my view. Build a court majority, bring up the right cases and get it on the books that way for a long long time. Sure, longer harder fight, but the right way to win it, quick cheap wins never last. 

I agree that the reciprocity law would not be the correct way for the majority of situations. However this issue involves states ignoring the 2nd Amendment, essentially in its entirety. Were they to flout the 14th amendment everybody and his mother would be screaming for federal action. And, as Mipafox has noted, since when does the Federal Gov't respect states' rights anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the states rights issue but the court stomped that when they went for the gay marriage laws. 

 

So two wrongs make a right? You can't say you support state rights and then turnaround and say but not when I don't wanna cause the other side were poopy heads. 

 

The court actually kinda did it right. It decided that the states don't get to chose who you stick it into and who you can enter in legal contracts with. Now, you can disagree on religious, ethical, whatever grounds but from a legal stand point that is EXACTLY how you want to approach gun rights because the path is already clear, not by legislation that can be contested but by having SCOTUS saying it is a constitutional right that states can't infringe. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So two wrongs make a right? You can't say you support state rights and then turnaround and say but not when I don't wanna cause the other side were poopy heads.

 

The court actually kinda did it right. It decided that the states don't get to chose who you stick it into and who you can enter in legal contracts with. Now, you can disagree on religious, ethical, whatever grounds but from a legal stand point that is EXACTLY how you want to approach gun rights because the path is already clear, not by legislation that can be contested but by having SCOTUS saying it is a constitutional right that states can't infringe.

No and I was not advocating for that and it may have been tough to discern from my post. I was simply pointing out that there is precedent

 

I did clearly say I agree it's a state's rights issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...