Posted on 02/10/2017 5:39:38 AM PST by marktwain
SB 7 is the Constitutional/Permitless carry bill in the Kentucky legislature for 2017. It was moved to the Senate Veterans, Military Affairs, & Public Protection committee. The NRA-ILA is reporting that the bill has been removed from Senate consideration.
Unfortunately, the constitutional/permitless carry legislation, Senate Bill 7, has been pulled from consideration in the Kentucky Senate.SB 7, as with all modern Constitutional carry bills, leaves the permit system in place. People who value the permit for state to state reciprocity, or as an alternate to NICS checks, will be able to use it for those purposes. Kentucky is one of 25 states where the carry permit can be used as an alternate to NICS.
Well, I can assure you that it wasn't Senator Robinson's preference, but the bare facts are that the leadership counted and decided that the votes weren't there and they didn't want to call for a vote and lose. Why weren't the votes there? Who knows? Politicians vote what they think is best for themselves. Somehow, they decided it was better for them to not vote for this and they decided the best thing was to not vote for it or against it, so that's what they did.The Kentucky Senate consists of 11 Democrats and 27 Republicans. That ratio is the same as in 2015.
R’s have a supermajority. I don’t get it.
Can you spell RINO??? I knew you could.
Kentucky quickly passed Right to Work. Not sure what the stumbling block is on Constitutional Carry.
I am sure someone painted the more faint hearted GOP legislators with lurid images of gun fights not only in ‘off-the-beaten-path’ hillbilly bars but also in Walmart, Targets, etc. So I am sure a significant percentage of them have gotten the vapors over it.. Maybe next time!
The self interest of county governments and unions can have great sway over state legislatures.
I find the term “constitutional carry” quite interesting. In the United States, the term “constitutional carry”, also called “permitless carry”, is a neologism for the legal carrying of a handgun, both openly and concealed, without the requirement of a government permit. It’s absurd to pass a law that gives a citizen a right that is already enshrined in the Constitution. The use of the term “constitutional carry” is an overt acknowledgment that the right already exists. A better approach might be to make a law that declares all previous laws relating to concealed carry are null and void.
So, Kentucky declines to honor the second amendment.
A better approach might be to make a law that declares all previous laws relating to concealed carry are null and void.
That is pretty much what these laws do. They remove existing prohibitions on the concealed carry of weapons.
They often leave in place prohibitions on possession firearms by minors (without parental supervision), convicted felons, and other people prohibited by law from possessing firearms.
No kidding. We managed it in WV over a disgusting 'RAT governor's veto.
>
I find the term “constitutional carry” quite interesting. In the United States, the term “constitutional carry”, also called “permitless carry”, is a neologism for the legal carrying of a handgun, both openly and concealed, without the requirement of a government permit. It’s absurd to pass a law that gives a citizen a right that is already enshrined in the Constitution. The use of the term “constitutional carry” is an overt acknowledgment that the right already exists. A better approach might be to make a law that declares all previous laws relating to concealed carry are null and void.
>
Ultimately, the ‘laws’ on the books are ALREADY null/void as you so noted: ‘Constitutional carry’ aka 2nd Amendment.
*THIS* is where I wish Fedzilla would come into play; protecting the Rights of the Citizens from the abuse of the State(s). But, it too violates any number of same\additional Rights and authorities than the States!
We have been traveling this path for at least a hundred years.
“Progressives” argued that the Constitution was outdated, but that the amendment process was too slow and difficult, so they deliberately worked at undermining the constitutional order and finding ways to obscure and ignore constittutional limits.
It has been very deliberate. We are on the cusp of reversing much of this. If Trump appoints two originalists/textualists, the Supreme Court will have an originalist/textualist majority for the first time in 80 years.
Trump has also broken the mediacracy, which controlled the information flow in the United States. We are already seeing results from that, and I expect President Trump to fracture the mediacracy into parts and set it to compete against itself to find errors, thus creating a capitalist/competitive base for freedom of speech. That has not really existed for 60 years or more. His administration is working on this daily. It will happen without legislation.
We can do much to facilitate these revolutionary developments. I expect most freepers are already engaged in doing so.
RINOs are playing their hate Trump card rather than doing what’s right for the state.
This says it will bite them big time:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/trump_will_win_this_one.html
The money quote:
In a fairly adjudicated case, it’s an open and shut case for the President. A decision to uphold the Ninth Circuit, places a big question mark on the competence of any judge that rules in favor of it. He or she would be going against the Constitution and the Law and endangering national security all at the same time. Decisions like this are common as dirt in the Ninth Circuit, but the Supremes are usually a little more careful. Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned in the Supreme Court so often that lawyers say that if you lose in the Ninth Circuit, you are guaranteed a win in the Supreme Court.
Due to the stupidity of the Liberals, the President is now in a no lose situation. If he gets the injunction lifted at the Supreme Court, he wins. If he does not, he has this case to use as an example of the Judiciary’s bias. He can say: “Look, they ignored the Constitution and the Law, invented rights for foreigners, and put the whole American public at risk.” Even if he loses in court, he will win in the court of public opinion. If there is a terrorist incident attributable to the judicial actions, he will win big time. Even without such an incident, his hand will be strengthened in all future dealings with the courts.
Sorry. Wrong thread (post above).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.