Things that have no chance of passing
8 Responses to “Things that have no chance of passing”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 16th, 2014 at 8:06 pm
If you can hang around for the Second Republic, it will be there…
January 16th, 2014 at 11:14 pm
Well it got 58 votes last year. With the new filibuster rules and an advocate, maybe it can. But a better chance would be next year when the GOP takes the sense.
January 17th, 2014 at 12:09 am
But…don’t anti-gun activists want gun regulations to look more like regulations on driving?
January 17th, 2014 at 3:29 pm
I fully predict that it will pass at some point in the next few years. It already has demonstrated majority support in both houses of Congress.
January 17th, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Anyone who thinks a federal intrusion into an area of state legislative control will result in less complexity and more personal freedom needs a good history lesson.
January 18th, 2014 at 5:03 am
Patience is called for. This is a shortcut that probably won’t do what we really want, at least not the way we would like it. Keep driving states to constitutional carry, and reciprocity becomes moot, one state at a time.
January 20th, 2014 at 3:09 pm
The number of votes it got in the past is not indicative of votes it might get in the future. Some number (many?) of those came from those Senators who knew their vote would not get it across the line. In the event their vote would really get this into law, they could well vote the other way and then blame it on some drummed-up technical reason. Classic stuff.
But to even get the law as an amendment or in bill form into a “roll call” vote will be impossible in the current Reid Senate. It won’t be put forth if there is a chance it would pass. Last year’s amendment was put up because the other side thought nobody would push gun rights after and so close to Newtown, and when it got more votes than gun control it was embarrassing.
Mr. Evilwrench has a point, also. Even if you have a permit from Indiana, you probably don’t want to get caught carrying in Chicago or Trenton or Los Angeles. When I was working with some of the drafters of one iteration of this bill a few years ago, we all agreed that, “there will be test cases.”
To be clear, “test cases” were people getting arrested and going to jail and losing houses defending their legal actions. There is just so much the Feds can do when it comes to state laws.
We need a couple more justices up there who will be solid, and a lot more states getting “firmed up” for carry rights. EvilWrench is right…it’s a game for the patient. Our community is solid and we don’t lose track of our rights, or forget the score for those who oppose us. We will win, but it’s going to take a little more time.
January 20th, 2014 at 3:20 pm
OK, I will bring up one “short cut” that would prove interesting and even possible: a federal carry permit.
Many hate the idea of a federal permit, because they know it would be less pretty than the one they get from their home state (for some, but not all). But using Federal Supremacy, the Commerce Clause, the 14th Amendment and some other hoo-haa, Congress could pass a law creating a federal permit that would light up the federal courts faster than a farmer growing his own grain despite progressive price controls (kudos for the first to name that one).
I’m not even saying it would “stick” through the courts, but it’s clear that the Congress could force it down the throat of recalcitrant states if they wanted to. And if they really wanted it to work, they could tie certain federal payments to respecting it. Kinda like they do with highway funds and Real ID.
Again, I know people hate Real ID and a “One World” carry card, because States-Have-Rights or something. I never really respect anyone who says, “States Rights”, because states have no rights. People have rights. Liberty-protecting governments should have no rights, because they are not people and I never want to see a state claim the “right” to do anything to or over the people. Go back and do some reading…states have “powers”, not rights. Only people can have rights.
I like people to get the words correct. It matters.