Posted on 07/22/2009 4:12:28 PM PDT by neverdem
CCW
B U M P
The NRA doesn’t have much credibility right now in light of their wussing out on Sotomayor.
A loss is a loss, regardless if it’s by 2 votes or 50
Thank God this passed. I heard on the radio that it failed.
It didn’t
Some of the DemoTurds voted YEA on it knowing it wouldnt pass. Keep a list of them the next time it looks like it has the ability to pass and you will see who pulled a political stunt for re-election time.
It didn’t pass needed 60 to move pass procedural hurdle.
I disagree. Since this is a right in the Constitution, the states should have no right to limit firearm privileges, in my opinion.
Anything not expressly outlined in the Constitution should be left to the states.
Many states (mine included most of all) use state legislation to restrict my right to own, carry and use a firearm.
The right to keep and bear arms is a federally guaranteed Constitutional rights. Any state that refuses to respect our right to keep and bear arms by putting restrictions of any sort on law abiding gun owners are in violation of the Constitution and the federal government should act against states which infringe on our rights.
To put it another way, no state should be allowed to infringe on our gun rights no more than any state should be allowed to reinstate slavery.
MY bad I didn’d read the whole thing. Just got excited by the headline.
It does not violate state’s rights. One of the duties of the federal government is to guarantee the rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
The fact that you cannot bear arms from one state to the next without those states agreeing that you can, that is the wrong, and violation of the Bill of Rights.
The fact that you must have a license at all is a violation, what the Congress should be doing is stopping the States from abridging and licensing, a basic right.
Why did the bill fail with 58 yes votes? Are 60 needed to prevent a presidential veto?
It does not violate state’s rights. One of the duties of the federal government is to guarantee the rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
The fact that you cannot bear arms from one state to the next without those states agreeing that you can, that is the wrong, and violation of the Bill of Rights.
The fact that you must have a license at all is a violation, what the Congress should be doing is stopping the States from abridging and licensing, a basic right.
You must have missed Wayne LaPieere’s official statement regarding the NRA’s position AGAINST Sotomayor.
It is posted on nra.org if you’d like to have a peek.
I was going to respond to your post but I see you have already been brought up to speed by others
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Second Amendment has not been “incorporated” yet. Go look up “incorporation doctrine” via the 14th Amendment for how the First Amendment was protected against violations by states.
There is a court case in progress now in Illinois which, if decided in our favor, would establish incorporation for the Second Amendment.
It’s not a ‘federally’ constitutional right. It’s a Constitutional right. Has nothing to do with the Federal government saying yes or no, it’s what our Country was founded on.
Sonia Sotomayor said the same thing.
Go look up “incorporation doctrine” via the 14th Amendment for how the First Amendment was protected against violations by states.
There are states which do not have the right to keep and bear arms listed as guaranteed rights (Maryland is one). Certainly those states cannot ban firearm ownership because of "incorporation" issues.
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.