ALEC Caves: Ditches 'Stand Your Ground', Voter ID Laws

It's too bad that the Supreme Court, in it's rush to excuse its substitution of the policy its liberal branch supported for the law contained in the Constitution, started "interpreting" the meaning of the Constitution to mean that the sovereign States were restricted by the Bill of Rights instead of adhering to a century and a half's worth of precedent that said the Constitution pertained to the federal government alone isn't it LJ. If they hadn't started down the road of becoming the union's policymakers and stayed within their constitutional limits of power, then States, cities and towns would be allowed to restrict, or deny entirely, the right of their citizens to keep and bear private arms along the lines you advocate. So sad for your desires that FDR's activists on the court established the very precedent which has ultimately led to the decisions which take that power away from the sovereign States, isn't it.

Welcome to the Sovereign Citizen brigade LJ - even if you are only a part time member.

CritiKalbILL wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Consider this. If Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin why did he not shoot him before he got beat up?

Cuz he had it all planned...he wanted to show that he was attacked first so he could justify shooting him. This was planned for weeks...he just waited patiently for the right color victim to step into his web, then he set his pre-meditated plan in motion. Makes sense to me....

Zimmerman forgot to give the dead guy a knife or cheap gun.

FredHayek wrote:

CritiKalbILL wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Consider this. If Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin why did he not shoot him before he got beat up?

Cuz he had it all planned...he wanted to show that he was attacked first so he could justify shooting him. This was planned for weeks...he just waited patiently for the right color victim to step into his web, then he set his pre-meditated plan in motion. Makes sense to me....

Zimmerman forgot to give the dead guy a knife or cheap gun.

He also forgot that calling 911 was a bad idea in the first place.

PrintSmith wrote: It's too bad that the Supreme Court, in it's rush to excuse its substitution of the policy its liberal branch supported for the law contained in the Constitution, started "interpreting" the meaning of the Constitution to mean that the sovereign States were restricted by the Bill of Rights instead of adhering to a century and a half's worth of precedent that said the Constitution pertained to the federal government alone isn't it LJ. If they hadn't started down the road of becoming the union's policymakers and stayed within their constitutional limits of power, then States, cities and towns would be allowed to restrict, or deny entirely, the right of their citizens to keep and bear private arms along the lines you advocate. So sad for your desires that FDR's activists on the court established the very precedent which has ultimately led to the decisions which take that power away from the sovereign States, isn't it.

Welcome to the Sovereign Citizen brigade LJ - even if you are only a part time member.

Don't you get tired of being ignorant AND stupid all the time?

Never have experienced the opportunity to experience it firsthand, though I must say I do tire of witnessing you putting your ignorance and stupidity on daily display. You are so ignorant, so stupid, that you fail to realize that it is the "interpretation" where the incorporation of the Bill of Rights as being applicable to the States that is now responsible for the States losing the ability to decide for themselves what the laws pertaining to type of guns, magazine capacity, concealed carry, purchase limits and all the rest of the policies that you object to. "Shall not be infringed" now equally binds every level of government all across this union - all because 5 justices, fancying themselves as being of a "progressive" mind set, substituted what they felt the law should be for what the law was.

The best is yet to come LJ. Next to fall will be the 1986 law making select fire and fully automatic weapons manufactured after a random date chosen by Congress illegal for every citizen to own. You think it's bad now with the inability to prohibit sales of semi-automatic "looks like an assault weapon" and 30 or 100 round magazines, just wait until every citizen in every State regains their ability to own a post 1986 military grade M-16 or M249 SAW. That should just about give you a coronary.........

You think it's bad now with the inability to prohibit sales of semi-automatic "looks like an assault weapon" and 30 or 100 round magazines, just wait until every citizen in every State regains their ability to own a post 1986 military grade M-16 or M249 SAW

I know I'm gonna get one as soon as that happens.

Like I said- the right to bear arms has nothing to do with duck hunting- 100 round magazines are helpful in a self-defense combat situation.

Dianne Feinstein Places Hold On Controversial Concealed Weapon Bills

WASHINGTON -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other's permits.

Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a "race to the bottom" in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.

"Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers," Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

In putting a hold on both bills, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012," and the "Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012," Feinstein is denying them the easiest avenue of passage: unanimous consent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 34798.html

Well, good... It looks like the Dems have learned that they can play the chicken-sh*t game of "putting things 'on hold' that they don't like".

Reciprocity of CCW may be one of the next issues for the Supremes to decide. If the citizens of Nevada are permitted to carry a concealed weapon, shouldn't people from other states with CCW's visiting the Las Vegas and Reno be allowed to carry there too?
Currently they can't.

I haven't decided where I stand on this issue myself. Shouldn't states be able to give special rights to their own citizens they withhold from other Americans? Cheaper in-state tuition or hunting licenses?

FredHayek wrote: Reciprocity of CCW may be one of the next issues for the Supremes to decide. If the citizens of Nevada are permitted to carry a concealed weapon, shouldn't people from other states with CCW's visiting the Las Vegas and Reno be allowed to carry there too?
Currently they can't.

I haven't decided where I stand on this issue myself. Shouldn't states be able to give special rights to their own citizens they withhold from other Americans? Cheaper in-state tuition or hunting licenses?

Sure they can, they just have to be able to meet the requirements of the "sovereign" state of Nevada.

Marriage and drivers licenses are recognized state to state. Unless you are in a single sex relationship.