Dems vow to kill 50 state CCW reciprocity bill

Liberals destroyed states rights with the expansion of the commerce clause, and most recently by shoving abortion and gay marriage down their throats.

It's kinda funny how they always get beaten with their own overreach.

 

No, we want all states to recognize the rights and privileges of residents of other states (per the 14th amendment). Any state that doesn't have a provision for CCW permits shouldn't have to have reciprocity. (there are no states that have no provision for CCW permits, though).

 

But doctors and lawyers and dentists and nurses and teachers and all kinds of other people don't have reciprocity. We should make a special exception for you? Nope.

 

Get ready for it.....its called THE FILIBUSTER!

 

Is there an Amendment in the Bill of Rights that addresses the practice of medicine?

Yeah I didn't think so.

 

Sure, keep telling yourself you're winning. Reminds me of Charlie Sheen.

 

Actually there is. 9th amendment. You have the right to practice medicine in this country if qualified to do so.

 

The NEW party of NO is ready and waiting for you. LOL

 

Riiiight. That's the one known as the "right to keep and bear a stethoscope".

 

I'm glad we agree. Or you could let me know of a case where someone who was qualified to practice medicine and was denied that right. I would be happy to review that case. LOL

 

Sure, they're welcome to make themselves even less relevant than they already are.

I for one certainly hope they maintain their status quo.

 

You can't pass a bill without them. Please continue to dismiss them....and we can grind down the wheels of government into a full stop

 

Yeah you're absolutely right. No one has ever lost their license to practice medicine, since it's a right and not a privilege.

 

I'm fine with that, let's hope they do grind it to a halt.

 

No one that is qualified to do so has without due process. You were going to show me a case....I guess you just forgot.

Bottom line is you want a special exception for gun owners. NO WAY.

 

Yeah and lets start with CCW reciprocity.

 

No it hasn't been "destroyed" by Heller, but you are welcome. At least you offered something beyond a pedantic question in falsely declaring yourself the victor

 

Your argument is non-existent.

The courts have ruled:

"The term "the people" as explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a term chosen by the Founding Fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community." U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez, 1990 No. 88-1353

There have also been many other cases they have ruled on to assure us that the Bill of Rights supports an individual right:

The Supreme Court has ruled seven times in this century (plus one concurring opinion) that the first eight amendments express fundamental personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Twining v. New Jersey, 1908 211 US 78
Powell v. Alabama, 1932 287 US 45
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 1936 297 US 233
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 372 US 335
Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968 391 US 166
Moore v. East Cleveland, 1976 431 US 494
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 No. 91-744
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (concurring) 381 US 479

Here are a few other cases, for your pleasure.

Please list the cases in which the Bill of Rights was found to NOT represent individual rights, and find us cases where the 2A was struck down as an individual right.

So far you have no evidence, court rulings, precedent, or anything else to support your claim.

The Supreme Court decided that a slave could not be a citizen because if he were a citizen, he would be entitled to enjoy all the rights which American citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights which the "courts would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the rights "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705

"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." This ruling also upheld that all able bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general government."
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

In 1897 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to arms is an "ancient" and "fundamental" right, a right which was "inherited from our English ancestors" and has existed "from time Immemorial."
Robertson v. Baldwin, 1897 165 US 275

The Supreme Court ruled that that by implication even resident aliens have the right to possess "weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defense."
Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 1914 232 US 138

The Supreme Court decided that a person facing a deadly attack may use lethal force in his self-defense, adding "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presense of an uplifted knife."
U.S. v. Brown, 1921 256 US 335

The Supreme Court stated that, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as against executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by constitutions paramount to laws." (Chief Justice Hughes quoting James Madison).
Near v. Minnesota, 1931 283 US 697, 714

"The militia is comprised of all able bodied males ... ordinarily when called these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common (military) use at the time."
U.S. v. Miller, 1939 307 US 174

In a first amendment case involving freedom of the press and religion, the Supreme Court ruled "The power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right ... a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943 319 US 105

The Supreme Court ruled that "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."
Reid v. Covert, 1957 354 US 1

Strangely, the Supreme Court has ruled that a convicted felon is exempt from obeying gun registration laws, that a "proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm."
U.S. v. Hayes, 1968 390 US 85

The Supreme Court has twice ruled that a federal official who deprives a citizen of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution may be held personally liable for damages.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1971
403 US 388 / Carlson v. Green, 1980 446 US 14

The Supreme Court ruled that a person enjoys a fundamental right to possess arms until his first conviction for a felony offense.
U.S. v. Lewis, 1980 445 US 95

"Police have no duty to protect any individual, but only a general duty to protect society, and cannot be held personally liable for failure to protect an individual."
South v. Maryland, 1855 / Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981

"The term "the people" as explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a term chosen by the Founding Fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community." U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez, 1990 No. 88-1353

The Supreme Court has ruled that a state official who, "under color of state law," deprives a citizen of a right guaranteed by the federal Constitution may be held personally liable for damages.
Hafer v. Melo, 1991 No. 90-681

 

Those are occupational licenses, and are essentially asking for permission to work in the state in a certain career. This is a license to exercise a privilege (carrying concealed) which is analogous to a driver's license (a privilege), which are honored state wide. The other similarity to reciprocity in driver's licenses, is that this is primarily for travellers, not new residents. When you move to a new state and get a new driver's license, the new state can retest you before getting a driver's license (every state I've moved to has required a retest on the written test, but they reserve the right to do a new driving test as well).They should do the same for a CCW permit for a new resident.

 

You guys love states rights....except when you dont. Lol

 

Everyone knows there is no valid comparison between a license to practice law and a license to carry.
Everyone

 

Well, we prefer individual rights over states rights, and we prefer states rights over federal power.

 

States rights!!!!! Do you hate Merica? Lol

 

Except when it come to CCW. Lol

 

CCW permit reciprocity is a triumph of individual rights over state power.