Comments on: National Carry Law http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:08:50 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Standard Mischief http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52939 Standard Mischief Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:26:50 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52939 Sebastian Says:<b>I’d prefer to stay a principled federalist, even though I would be happy with the result of this bill’s passage.</b> Same here, except call me a principled <b>anti-</b>federalist. Sebastian Says:I’d prefer to stay a principled federalist, even though I would be happy with the result of this bill’s passage.

Same here, except call me a principled anti-federalist.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52867 Sebastian Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:42:55 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52867 I should also say that I would fully support a bill gutting state laws that restricted honest citizens from being armed based on Congress powers under the 14th amendment. I think Congress could also use its powers to regulate the militia to interfere with state laws against the bearing of arms, arguing that it's vitial for national defense. The latter might be more of a stretch, but given the kind of enemy we're facing now, I think there's a good argument. I should also say that I would fully support a bill gutting state laws that restricted honest citizens from being armed based on Congress powers under the 14th amendment. I think Congress could also use its powers to regulate the militia to interfere with state laws against the bearing of arms, arguing that it’s vitial for national defense. The latter might be more of a stretch, but given the kind of enemy we’re facing now, I think there’s a good argument.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52866 Sebastian Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:38:56 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52866 Ron W: If that's what the bill actually did, I would have little problem with it. The bill's jurisdictional hook involves the fact that the gun once traveled in interstate commerce. I find this to be repugnant, in terms of Congress abusing its commerce powers under the constitution. Sadly, this doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd or 14th amendment, and everything to do with Republicans/Conservatives abandonining federalism in the name of a result they like. I'd prefer to stay a principled federalist, even though I would be happy with the result of this bill's passage. Ron W:

If that’s what the bill actually did, I would have little problem with it. The bill’s jurisdictional hook involves the fact that the gun once traveled in interstate commerce. I find this to be repugnant, in terms of Congress abusing its commerce powers under the constitution. Sadly, this doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd or 14th amendment, and everything to do with Republicans/Conservatives abandonining federalism in the name of a result they like.

I’d prefer to stay a principled federalist, even though I would be happy with the result of this bill’s passage.

]]> By: Standard Mischief http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52755 Standard Mischief Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:59:41 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52755 here's the proposed bill... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109mIxwDK ...and it comes in at a very lightweight approx. 414 words. here’s the proposed bill…

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109mIxwDK

…and it comes in at a very lightweight approx. 414 words.

]]> By: Ron W http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52580 Ron W Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:41:49 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52580 You mean that HR 4547 would actually apply the 2nd Amendment to THE PEOPLE of all States in accordance with the 14th Amendment? And that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunties of the Citizens in the several States?" (Article IV, Section2, U.S. Constitution) Wow, whatta concept! I will insist that my Congressman, Bart Gordon, 6th District, TN, who says he is a "strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment" to demonstrate that stance by supporting and co-sponsoring HR 4547. You mean that HR 4547 would actually apply the 2nd Amendment to THE PEOPLE of all States in accordance with the 14th Amendment? And that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunties of the Citizens in the several States?” (Article IV, Section2, U.S. Constitution) Wow, whatta concept!

I will insist that my Congressman, Bart Gordon, 6th District, TN, who says he is a “strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment” to demonstrate that stance by supporting and co-sponsoring HR 4547.

]]> By: tgirsch http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52566 tgirsch Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:49:35 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52566 "not code for racism" Depends whether or not you're doing a big publicity stunt in Philadelphia, MS when you bring it up, I suppose. :) “not code for racism”

Depends whether or not you’re doing a big publicity stunt in Philadelphia, MS when you bring it up, I suppose. :)

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52462 SayUncle Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:55:06 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52462 Tom, I came close to mentioning that it wasn't really good from a states' rights* perspective. * not code for racism. Tom, I came close to mentioning that it wasn’t really good from a states’ rights* perspective.

* not code for racism.

]]> By: tgirsch http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52458 tgirsch Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:51:18 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52458 Sounds like the federal .gov sticking its nose where it doesn't belong to me. Even though this is in an area you'd support, I would think this sort of additional encroachment of state sovereignty would trouble you. Sounds like the federal .gov sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong to me. Even though this is in an area you’d support, I would think this sort of additional encroachment of state sovereignty would trouble you.

]]> By: Blake http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/comment-page-1/#comment-52451 Blake Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:38:37 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/02/13/national_carry_law/#comment-52451 Hmm...I wonder if that would thereby also include municipalities (ie...Chicago) Hmm…I wonder if that would thereby also include municipalities (ie…Chicago)

]]>