TexasCHLforum.com

Solaris wrote:
You are either very old or very young. Either way, it does not matter. What matters is who is in control NOW, or in the most recent past.

Republicans have controlled Congress most of the last 20 years. House 16 of the last 20 years, Senate 12 of the last 20 years.

And more to the point, the Republicans have controlled both House & Senate since this bill was introduced.

And what do we have to show for it? Nothing. And the Trump payback is the result.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I can see a possible pro-gun argument for not supporting the bill........and that would be that federal involvement in firearms law is already too prevalent, and we either believe in states' rights, or we don't. In that light, isn't it possible that Rep. Burgess has a principled reason for not having cosponsored it? I don't know anything about the guy. How has he been on the 2nd Amanemdnet otherwise?

I'm a strong believer in state's rights but no stronger that I am a believer in personal rights. The 10th amendment clearly states:

"“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 2nd amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to "the people". Heller confirmed the individual right.

I understand, and I agree in principle, BUT....... Just how often is the Constitution being respected by the federal gov't these days? For instance (regardless of where you come down on the issue), the recent administration attempt to cow school districts into opening their bathrooms and locker rooms to any gender by threatening to withhold DOE funds if they don't comply is a CLEAR case of interference in states rights.......by a federal bureaucracy for which the Constitution makes no charter. And that example came right off the top of my head. Witness how often Congress has used the Commerce Clause to regulate national policy in ways that would have horrified the Founders.......i.e. Obamacare most recently...... And you know as well as I or anybody else knows that this bill will NOT clear Congress without amendments. Remember the Lautenberg Amendment? Or how about the Hughes amendment to FOPA? And THAT was with a republican president who had a republican senate majority. And now we are facing an presidential election between the two presumed nominees, one of whom has made it her goal to institute Australia-style gun control, and the other of whom is also left of center with a record of having favored draconian anti gun laws in the past.

So how is trusting the Constitution to the grubby paws of DC working out for you?

Yes, it would be a GREAT idea if all it did was force all states to recognize one another's carry licenses, just like they do drivers licenses and marriage licenses. But, I don't think the federal gov't can get involved without its insisting on implementing top down control. Why? Because it concerns guns.....the fed has NO problem forcing states to recognize a completely new marriage paradigm, but with guns, that's a whole 'nuther level. And if there is one thing that a statist politician fears more than anything is an armed (and angry) populace. And right now, people are REAL angry. And there's another issue....... It automatically negates constitutional carry nationally by recognizing that a guaranteed right may be restricted nationally - unlike driving and marriage which are not Constitutionally guaranteed rights. And in my opinion, neither the state nor the fed has any business regulating marriage - let alone issuing licenses for it. If people want to cohabit and have the state recognize it for tax purposes by registering their relationship as a civil union, that's fine; but marriage is a sacred commitment, and it belongs in the purview of religion......whatever religion one ascribes to.....and "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof". And the 1st Amendment is an incorporated right. So DL and ML are totally different issues than CL.

Mine may not be the popular opinion, and it may not suit everybody, but I believe it is the only one that protects the right to carry better than putting it at risk of top-down federal control.

Reasonable people of good will are free to disagree. This is just my opinion, and worth exactly what it costs.

SewTexas wrote:I'm one of the most pro-gun people you're going to find, and I'm pretty much against this bill. mostly for the reasons TAM mentioned. I think it should be handled at the state level. ....

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I can see a possible pro-gun argument for not supporting the bill........and that would be that federal involvement in firearms law is already too prevalent, and we either believe in states' rights, or we don't. In that light, isn't it possible that Rep. Burgess has a principled reason for not having cosponsored it? I don't know anything about the guy. How has he been on the 2nd Amanemdnet otherwise?