Ryan Blocking Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Congressman Tells Armed American Radio

[Smokin Joe]

@Cyber Liberty

I can see a day when those states you mention try and place restrictions on magazine capacity and other such nonsense on the military units within their borders, not just National Guard, but Reserve and Active Duty.

Could you imagine Soldiers at Fort Drum, NY or at the National Training Center in California being restricted to single fire only 10 round magazines in their rifles and pistols for training purposes?


We all chuckle at that happening now...

What are they doing at Ft. Carson?

[RoosGirl]

I didn't read it that way.

I read "the Constitution doesn't affirm the individual's right to bear arms" (using the lame "militia" stunt), and "the SCOTUS needs to alter what the Constitution says for it to apply to the individual".

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
@Cyber Liberty

   Hard for me to understand liberal beliefs.

[Cyber Liberty]

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
@Cyber Liberty

   Hard for me to understand liberal beliefs.

They have to twist the meanings of their own beliefs to avoid being run out of town on a rail when people find out they're barking moonbats.

[Smokin Joe]

Be careful what you wish for.   The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia.   The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia.   A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense.  For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful.   We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority,  held the gun right to be an individual one.   

PURE UNADULTERATED MANURE> The plain language of the Second Amendment says The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed. There is nothing making active or past duty Militia service a condition of that Right. The militia (The Army, in its entirety, as defined by Barclay's Dictionary, London ca 1820) will secure whatever it wants by force of arms and needs no such guarantees. It is the People who need a safeguard when words fail to secure their Rights against a rogue military, whether that be State of Federal. If you pursue the issue in the Federalist you will discover that each state had a Militia (an army), and there was to be a standing Federal Army, large enough in size to interdict if two or more states got into a squabble, but not so large as to prevail against the militias of several states, or the overwhelming numbers of the armed populace, whether they had the benefit of Martial training or not..

The only reason there is any complication or discussion whatsoever on the issue of reciprocity, is that the Second Amendment has been violated some 20,000 times, placing infringements on the Right. Had The Second Amendment been strictly adhered to, we wouldn't even be talking about permits, reciprocity, magazine capacity, or any of it. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms would not be Infringed, period.

[TomSea]

It appears Ryan has been accused, called out on doing this with this issue before.

One month ago: http://www.conservativehq.com/article/26074-weak-kneed-ryan-stalls-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity

I even found an article from last year mentioning Ryan. There is a lot on this issue to read on.

[Jazzhead]

Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.

I've stated time and again my view that the RTKBA is an individual right derived from the individual, natural right of self defense.   I've stated time and again my support for the Heller decision.  But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does.  The plain language of the Second Amendment includes a predicate clause that refers to the exercise of defense collectively.  It took the SCOTUS to affirm the individual right - and it did so by the narrowest of majorities. 

That's why it's hard to fault those who defend Trump's lack of accomplishment by pointing to the Gorsuch appointment.  That appointment was huge -  the individual right to RTKBA, like the right to abortion, effectively depends on the composition of the Supreme Court.       

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Not if you know the english language and understand sentence structure.

But then our illustrious SC has ignored the 2nd for decades and has created rights where none exist.   They cannot be trusted.

It's the illustrious SC that affirmed the right as an individual one, notwithstanding the predicate clause.   

[txradioguy]

and again my support for the Heller decision.  But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does.

You were doing so well until you put that in there.

[txradioguy]

What are they doing at Ft. Carson?

Not sure...what have you read?

[Cyber Liberty]

You were doing so well until you put that in there.

It certainly does illustrate a significant difference in philosophy most of us have with this person.  He thinks rights are bestowed by Government, not by a Creator.  This has long been a linchpin in his arguments on this forum:  What the courts giveth, the courts taketh away.

[thackney]

I've stated time and again my view that the RTKBA is an individual right derived from the individual, natural right of self defense.   I've stated time and again my support for the Heller decision.  But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does.  The plain language of the Second Amendment includes a predicate clause that refers to the exercise of defense collectively.  It took the SCOTUS to affirm the individual right - and it did so by the narrowest of majorities. 

That's why it's hard to fault those who defend Trump's lack of accomplishment by pointing to the Gorsuch appointment.  That appointment was huge -  the individual right to RTKBA, like the right to abortion, effectively depends on the composition of the Supreme Court.     

Many, certainly not all, read the predicate clause as the justification for the individual right.  Militia were formed by individuals that stepped forward to help overthrow an unjust government.  But without the individuals, prior to the step up, being armed and self-trained, they would not be useful for the purpose of a Militia.

It does not read that the arms are only for Militia use.

[Smokin Joe]

I've stated time and again my view that the RTKBA is an individual right derived from the individual, natural right of self defense.   I've stated time and again my support for the Heller decision.  But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does.  The plain language of the Second Amendment includes a predicate clause that refers to the exercise of defense collectively.  It took the SCOTUS to affirm the individual right - and it did so by the narrowest of majorities. 

That's why it's hard to fault those who defend Trump's lack of accomplishment by pointing to the Gorsuch appointment.  That appointment was huge -  the individual right to RTKBA, like the right to abortion, effectively depends on the composition of the Supreme Court.     

Silly man.

What guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the millions of such arms in the hands of the People.

No handful of aging folks sitting in a building in Washington DC have the power to take it nor give it.

We have it and we aren't giving it up.
That was what the founders fully intended, and it is still working.

A well regulated (controlled) Militia (army), being necessary to the security of a free State (from all enemies, foreign and domestic), The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.

At issue was not the training of the Army, but the control of it, especially in thirteen States which had been subject to the whim and depredations of Military Governors and their troops. The spectre of an Army taking control of the civil government and ignoring the unalienable rights of the citizenry was so livid in the minds of the Founders that the next Amendment dealt with forcibly quartering troops in private homes--an issue not raised again until the War Between the States and later the Patriot Act and NDAA.

[Smokin Joe]

Not sure...what have you read?

I haven't. It was a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I would think that as long as the magazines stay on base, the locals can't do squat (US property, not CO within the fences, and subject to UCMJ, not CO law) but I might be mistaken.

[Suppressed]

The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia.

@Jazzhead

No, it doesn't.

It frames the reason for the right's protection in terms of a militia.

[thackney]

Silly man.

What guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the millions of such arms in the hands of the People.

No handful of aging folks sitting in a building in Washington DC have the power to take it nor give it.

We have it and we aren't giving it up.
That was what the founders fully intended, and it is still working.

A well regulated (controlled) Militia (army), being necessary to the security of a free State (from all enemies, foreign and domestic), The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.

At issue was not the training of the Army, but the control of it, especially in thirteen States which had been subject to the whim and depredations of Military Governors and their troops. The spectre of an Army taking control of the civil government and ignoring the unalienable rights of the citizenry was so livid in the minds of the Founders that the next Amendment dealt with forcibly quartering troops in private homes--an issue not raised again until the War Between the States and later the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I do not agree the term Militia refers to the army.  Both terms were used at the time of writing to describe separate groups.

http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago

[txradioguy]

I haven't. It was a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I would think that as long as the magazines stay on base, the locals can't do squat (US property, not CO within the fences, and subject to UCMJ, not CO law) but I might be mistaken.

No you are correct they can't do anything...right now...as long as that stuff stays within the confines of Ft. Carson.

I was merely hypnotizing on a day in the near future when the states like California and New York WILL sue the government to force the installations in their states to comply with state gun laws as far as guidelines on magazine capacity caliber's allowed and rate of fire.

[driftdiver]

It's the illustrious SC that affirmed the right as an individual one, notwithstanding the predicate clause.

@Jazzhead
The illustrious SC has shown itself to be corruptible and biased on many occasions over the years.   We have the right regardless of what the SC says, because the SC did not create the right.  Nor does the government.

Our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights.   The Constitution and associated Amendments are simply an attempt to prevent the government from infringing on those rights.  They put those protections in place because governments have shown themselves to be untrustworthy throughout history.

The power is of the People, not the Government.   We the People need to remember it.

[driftdiver]

No you are correct they can't do anything...right now...as long as that stuff stays within the confines of Ft. Carson.

I was merely hypnotizing on a day in the near future when the states like California and New York WILL sue the government to force the installations in their states to comply with state gun laws as far as guidelines on magazine capacity caliber's allowed and rate of fire.

@txradioguy   @Smokin Joe
A lawsuit wouldn't get very far.   Look at alcohol consumption as a comparison.    Military bases generally mirror the local laws where booze is concerned but they don't have too.  They can set their own rules within the boundaries of Federal Law and Military Law.

I'd like to see them try though.  It would be fun to watch.

[driftdiver]

I do not agree the term Militia refers to the army.  Both terms were used at the time of writing to describe separate groups.

http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago

At the time a standing Army was not something they expected or anticipated.   Hence the militia which was comprised of every able bodied man up to around 44 yrs old. 

[thackney]

At the time a standing Army was not something they expected or anticipated.   Hence the militia which was comprised of every able bodied man up to around 44 yrs old.

I don't agree the didn't expect or anticipate.  Read the sections of the Federalists papers in the link above.  They viewed the militia as a check on any standing army.

[Suppressed]

Many, certainly not all, read the predicate clause as the justification for the individual right.  Militia were formed by individuals that stepped forward to help overthrow an unjust government.  But without the individuals, prior to the step up, being armed and self-trained, they would not be useful for the purpose of a Militia.

It does not read that the arms are only for Militia use.

"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the prosperity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."


Would that mean only the educated and those with voting rights would have the right to read books?

[driftdiver]

I don't agree the didn't expect or anticipate.  Read the sections of the Federalists papers in the link above.  They viewed the militia as a check on any standing army.

Sorry, they didn't expect a standing army like we have today.   At the time it was unnecessary except for use by tyrants.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights.   The Constitution and associated Amendments are simply an attempt to prevent the government from infringing on those rights. 

I don't disagree with respect to many of the Constitution's enumerated rights which derive from "natural" rights, but the Second Amendment doesn't fit that pattern because of the predicate clause.   The natural right - the right given to us by the "Creator" - is the right to individual self-defense, of home and hearth.   That's not what the Second Amendment protects.  It protects the right to keep arms in the context of collective defense, of service in the militia.   

It was the SCOTUS that, over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right based derived from the inherent or natural right of self-defense.  Keep in mind the facts -  D.C. attempted to effectively ban all handguns, an essential tool for protection of the home.   

The loss of this individual right is but one SCOTUS justice away.   A different Court can easily, and plausibly, limit the 2A to arms borne for service in the well-regulated militia.   

[txradioguy]

I'd like to see them try though.  It would be fun to watch.

@driftdiver yeah it will be fun to watch.

My fear is they will do as all Liberals do and forum shop...find a judge that will agree with them...and it will be done in a state where the 9th Circus has jurisdiction.

I know it's all supposition at this point...but if there's one thing I've learned about Liberals over the years it's to never say never when it comes to the crazy things they might try.

[driftdiver]

I don't disagree with respect to many of the Constitution's enumerated rights which derive from "natural" rights, but the Second Amendment doesn't fit that pattern because of the predicate clause.   The natural right - the right given to us by the "Creator" - is the right to individual self-defense, of home and hearth.   That's not what the Second Amendment protects.  It protects the right to keep arms in the context of collective defense, of service in the militia.   

It was the SCOTUS that, over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right based derived from the inherent or natural right of self-defense.  Keep in mind the facts -  D.C. attempted to effectively ban all handguns, an essential tool for protection of the home.   

The loss of this individual right is but one SCOTUS justice away.   A different Court can easily, and plausibly, limit the 2A to arms borne for service in the well-regulated militia.   

@Jazzhead
Its an individual right despite what all the liberals wish.   I know the common theme is to redefine American traditions, laws and morals and you've been more successful than expected but it doesn't change the reality.

The loss of ANY protected right is just one vote away.  The difference in this case is they cannot win a war with every American gun owner.  Their only chance of success is to divide and conquer.