Trucking News: National reciprocity ???

[mndriver]

Truck drivers may be able to carry concealed handguns across state lines, thanks to bills in the House and Senate

Those with a concealed carry license in their home state aren't always able to carry a concealed weapon when they travel.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Hammer166]

And places like New York will still pull their crap requiring an affirmative defense in court, just like they do with people they catch legally transporting (per the Supreme Court's rulings) their weapons.

 

[TheJrod]

Sorta like states that ban abortion? I'm adopted, so I'm not exactly "Pro", but either you are OK with States making their own rules, or you're not.

 

[Hammer166]

Sorta like states that ban abortion? I'm adopted, so I'm not exactly "Pro", but either you are OK with States making their own rules, or you're not.

Not really like it at all. The 2bd Amendment isn't a 'found by a court' right like abortion.
And for the record, I'm all for a move back to greater states rights and a halt to Federal overreach.

 

[Adk Bob]

Not really like it at all. The 2bd Amendment isn't a 'found by a court' right like abortion.
And for the record, I'm all for a move back to greater states rights and a halt to Federal overreach.

All of our rights, granted to us by the Bill of Rights, have limitations. The 2nd is no exception.

 

[Hammer166]

All of our rights, granted to us by the Bill of Rights, have limitations. The 2nd is no exception.

You are demonstrating a common misconception about the Constitution. Our rights pre-date the Constitution, it doesn't grant us those rights, it tells the government they cannot take them away. Those rights are granted to us by our Creator.

 

[Duck]

All of our rights, granted to us by the Bill of Rights, have limitations. The 2nd is no exception.

WRONG

Just what the **** do you think "shall not be infringed" means? How ****ing dumb do you have to be to misunderstand such a clear and simple statement?

 

[Adk Bob]

You are demonstrating a common misconception about the Constitution. Our rights pre-date the Constitution, it doesn't grant us those rights, it tells the government they cannot take them away. Those rights are granted to us by our Creator.

We live in a land of laws. They apply to everyone. You can believe in whatever religion you choose. Our laws govern everybody, regardless of what God they believe in. The US Constitution only mentions religion to prohibit "religious tests". And thank goodness that the only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is restricted to give us the right to worship, or not, as we choose.

 

[Adk Bob]

WRONG

Just what the **** do you think "shall not be infringed" means? How ****ing dumb do you have to be to misunderstand such a clear and simple statement?

Obviously not as ****ing dumb as you are. Typical of your ilk, you didn't mention "A well regulated militia". The 2nd is not about personal ownership. It never has been

 

[Duck]

Obviously not as ****ing dumb as you are. Typical of your ilk, you didn't mention "A well regulated militia". The 2nd is not about personal ownership. It never has been

Oh well in that case I think I'll go turn in all my guns to the almighty government. You proved me wrong



Oh, BTW, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this in the Heller case. It's an individual right, not a collective. Try again, Bloomberg.

 

[Hammer166]

We live in a land of laws. They apply to everyone. You can believe in whatever religion you choose. Our laws govern everybody, regardless of what God they believe in. The US Constitution only mentions religion to prohibit "religious tests". And thank goodness that the only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is restricted to give us the right to worship, or not, as we choose.

That's a heck of a lot of words to NOT address the primary point of my post, which is our rights pre-exist the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a document which grants individuals (and states) rights, but rather a document designed to restrict the Federal Government's powers.

 

[Adk Bob]

That's a heck of a lot of words to NOT address the primary point of my post, which is our rights pre-exist the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a document which grants individuals (and states) rights, but rather a document designed to restrict the Federal Government's powers.

The Bill of Rights is the document you're looking for. It grants us specific legal rights. And all of them come with restrictions. Your religion will not get you out of any crime you're accused of committing.

 

[Adk Bob]

This bill is unconstitutional. The govt can't force such laws on states.

 

[Hammer166]

The Bill of Rights is the document you're looking for. It grants us specific legal rights. And all of them come with restrictions. Your religion will not get you out of any crime you're accused of committing.

You must be on the political left, because you're using one of their favorite tactics, arguing a point that nobody made! No one except you has said a word about using religion to exempt oneself from a law.

As far as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you might want to brush up on your knowledge of sets and subsets. Bill of Rights is a subset of the Constitution. So when one speaks of the Constitution the Bill of Rights and the amendments are included.

And yet again, I have to point out you have failed to address the fact that the Founders crafted the Constitution with the idea that our rights pre-existed the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists foresaw an overreaching federal government, and insisted on the Bill of Rights to further and specifically restrict the government.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists, who advocated a strong national government, and Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

 

[Adk Bob]

Hammer166,

Since you need to pigeon hole people, yes I am a leftee. And proud of it.

When someone claims we have rights from prior to the Constitution it is obvious they think some God gave us rights that the Constitution does not. That is not true. The Constitution is intentionally void of any religion or religious support. It lays out the foundation of a secular government. Secular being void of religion.

We enjoy no "pre-existing" rights that are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights that you can point to any religion for origin. If you can, please educate me.

 

[Hammer166]

Hammer166,

Since you need to pigeon hole people, yes I am a leftee. And proud of it.

When someone claims we have rights from prior to the Constitution it is obvious they think some God gave us rights that the Constitution does not. That is not true. The Constitution is intentionally void of any religion or religious support. It lays out the foundation of a secular government. Secular being void of religion.

We enjoy no "pre-existing" rights that are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights that you can point to any religion for origin. If you can, please educate me.

Go back to my last post and reread that paragraph I quoted. Notice there is no language about the granting of Rights. The disagreement was the one group felt the Constitution alone was restrictive enough, and the other felt there needed to be specific restrictions.

But let's back up a little bit. The Declaration of Independence was the framework under which our nation was to be constructed.. there are two different passages in the Declaration that clearly spell out how the founders thought about our rights.

. the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

You see, our Founders didn't see a government as existing to the bestow rights, they saw government as existing to protect rights. Right which in their eyes existed solely because you existed as a man.

 

[Adk Bob]

And yet they intentionally put no mention of or credit to any religion in that framework. We have the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Period. And they include gun rights, as specifically stated using words like "A well regulated militia...". No matter how Scalia bastardized his spin of its original intent.

 

[Hammer166]

And yet they intentionally put no mention of or credit to any religion in that framework. We have the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Period. And they include gun rights, as specifically stated using words like "A well regulated militia...". No matter how Scalia bastardized his spin of its original intent.

Religion has nothing to do with this. Go read the text of the 10 amendments, nowhere in that text does it Grant rights it speaks solely of restricting the government's ability against those rights!

I'd suggest you go do some reading of some historical documents. And what you won't find is any mention of a government granting rights it will be solely of government protecting rights. You find something that speaks to your case then we can continue this discussion until then I'm done!

 

[Injun]

Obviously not as ****ing dumb as you are. Typical of your ilk, you didn't mention "A well regulated militia". The 2nd is not about personal ownership. It never has been

The key word in the Second Amendment is not "regulated," which did not mean "with rules and restrictions," as we interpret it today. "Regulated," in those days meant "made regular," or "normalized." Neither is the key word "militia," as so many on the Left also misinterpret. In reality, the militia was made up of private citizens who would be called into action in the event they were needed for an armed conflict. "A well regulated militia," therefore, was any group of random guys who owned widely used (normal) guns and were willing to use them to defend freedom and, since firearms ownership was normalized, nobody turned a hair if they saw somebody packing one around.

The rest of the clause says, "...being neccesary for the security of a free State," Or, in other words, that group of guys who choose to have and carry guns in order to protect freedom... Note the comma after the clause and the incomplete sentence structure. That comma is pretty important. What it does is separate the Why from the What. The first half of the Second Amendment tells us *Why* they acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, to the meat and potatoes of the thing:
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is notable that this half of the Amendment is a plainly written, stand-alone sentence. This was by design, not by chance. You can drop the first half of the Amendment and it still makes perfect sense. You cannot drop the second half and sound like anything but an uneducated rube, which the men who wrote this were not. So, let's break this full sentence down: "The right of the people" They're saying the right already existed before they laid down a written acknowledgment. I'll get back to the word "People" later. So, we have an existing right, but what is it? "To keep and bear arms..." Note: There are no caveats or exceptions here. There are no restrictions about what type of arms can be kept and carried, or who may keep and carry them.
Here, there is another comma inserted as a brief pause so that emphasis will fall on the next four words: "shall not be infringed." "Shall" is definitive. When you're told you SHALL do something, that means it's mandatory, with no wiggle room. You WILL do whatever it is. Since that word is immediately followed by the word "not," it becomes a mandatory negative. "Shall not" is not an arguable point. It is an absolute prohibition. It is something the government is not allowed to do.
Moving on, "...be infringed." is pretty clear. It goes beyond "be restricted" and actually has a closer definition to "be hampered in any way." If I'm restricting somebody, I'm holding them back from doing something. If I'm restricting a commodity, I am preventing that commodity from being distributed. If I am "infringing" on somebody, I am simply getting into their personal space or otherwise harassing them. I'm not stopping them from doing something, I am merely bothering them. When I infringe on a person's access to a commodity, I'm not preventing them from getting it. Rather, I'm making access to it a pain in the ass.

Now, let's get back to the most important two words in the Second Amendment, "...the People..." This is where the reference to individuals comes from. Nobody would argue that the word "People" as used in the Constitution and its Amendments does not refer to individuals in the general population. This has been affirmed time and time again throughout US history. An agent of the government is not allowed to just walk in your door, rummage through your belongings and take whatever they want to because "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... shall not be violated..." (Fourth Amendment) Nobody can stop you from picketing your State capitol because "....the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is recognized in the First Amendment.
It would be ridiculous to insist "the People" refers to the representatives of the people (government) and not the individuals who make up the general population. Why would the government picket itself? Since it's well establishing that "the People" refers to individuals in the First, Fourth, Fifth (person), Sixth, Ninth Tenth and Fourteenth (persons) Amendments, then switching over to the use of the term "citizen" or "citizens" for the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, the only conclusion that makes sense is "the People," as used in the Second Amendment does not change meaning or intent just because those on the Left wish it would. It clearly means individuals in the general population. You, me and all the other yous and mes out there.

The only other logical conclusion is there are a lot of unConstitutional laws on the books.

 

[Adk Bob]

You can minimize "well regulated" but, that only ignores the fact that militias were organized, practiced groups of civilians who did not walk around "packing". In fact, most towns kept those weapons under lock and key, to be handed out for practicing how to be a "well regulated militia".

Your misinterpretation is typical right wing spin. Accepted law has always treated gun ownership as not a right... until Scalia and his conservative justices that is.