egads.....a potential BsB nightmare

[Plane]

I think this has to take into account the purpose the llaw serves.

If the purpose of the second admendment is to ensure that the government can be overthrown by the people , then we should have tanks and artillery.

Since I can't afford a tank, perhaps it would be better to limit the arms that the government may have at its disposal.

[BT]

I guess but then one of the legitimate federal powers is to provide for the common defense. Whether it trumps the second i don't know.

[BSB]

"I have never heard of a federal CCW, have you?"

FBI? ATF? Secret Service/Treasury? Etc.

In the early 80s I worked for the Dept of Defense. I had a DOD permit to carry because I worked in proximity of plates used to print US curency. That was a federal permit to carry I believe.


BSB

[Xavier_Onassis]

Job related permits are logical for federal workers.

I fail to see why they should be given to civilian and gun "hobbyists".

[sirs]

You notice nothing in the bill explicitly forbids federal regulations in the enforcement of the bill.

As you have yet to produce anything to the contrary, ouside of speculation, you'll notice nothing in the bill produces any new federal regulations, or dept, or database, or means of enforcement.  The CCW itself IS the valid status

[BT]

you'll notice nothing in the bill produces any new federal regulations, or dept, or database, or means of enforcement.

And you will notice that nothing in the bill explicitly forbids it.

Or perhaps you can show where it does.

[sirs]

you'll notice nothing in the bill produces any new federal regulations, or dept, or database, or means of enforcement.

And you will notice that nothing in the bill explicitly forbids it.

Outside of the fact that the CCW itself IS the validation that states would be supposedly looking for

Or perhaps you can show where it does.

Show you something that doesn't exist?  Reinforce your speculation??  In what legislation, ANYWHERE, does congress expressly write in...."....And this is all we're going to do about this"

I'll stick with what it currently does and doesn't do......and currently what it doesn't do, is precisely what you're speculating

[BT]

And yet a few weeks ago we were aghast at HHS implementing regulations requiring insurance carriers to provide Contraception coverage free of charge even to organizations whose religious beliefs were totally against such provisions, because the legislation neither addressed that circumstance nor did it explicitly forbid such regulations.

The power of the executive is in the implementation of federal law. It is the duty of the legislative to limit that.

But if you trust an anti gun executive branch to not use a law to its advantage then i can see why you are not hesitating in endorsing such an act.

[sirs]

And yet a few weeks ago we were aghast at HHS implementing regulations requiring insurance carriers to provide Contraception coverage free of charge even to organizations whose religious beliefs were totally against such provisions, because the legislation neither addressed that circumstance nor did it explicitly forbid such regulations.

Apples/oranges.  The regulation being imposed was part of the gazillions of pages, that Miss Pelosi kept claiming we need to pass this, in order to see whats in it.

This legislation is not that monster.  It's simply allows person with a valid CCW to pass from 1 state to another.  No more no less.  No added bureaucracy, no new Federal database, no new Federal agency, no new anything.  If the time comes where the Dems did try to impose such additional legislation, THEN we can start to tear it apart for the overreach in Federal power.  As IS, the current legsislation being proposed, does nothing of the sort

[BT]

Your trust in the Obama Administration is admirable,

[sirs]

I don't trust anyone in Government, nor is it legislation being proposed by the Obama administration. 

But if we're going to prioritize, Obama/Holder whold be below sewer level, on the trust meter, while the GOP in congress is unlikely to allow even the remotest effort of trying to expand said legislation

[BT]

The legislation does not have to be proposed by the Obama Administration to be misapplied by them.

[sirs]

That's why we have other branches of Government, to help prevent any additional legislation to be superimposed on the current one, that is perfectly reasonable and unassuming, as it relates to supposed increase in federal power

[BT]

Well allrighty then.

Let me mark you down as in favor of this legislation in its present form.

Me i would be against it in its present form.

It's not like i donate to the NRA and expect sloppy legislative efforts in return.

[sirs]

Well allrighty then.

Let me mark you down as in favor of this legislation in its present form. (AS IS)
 
Me i would be against it in its present form.

Glad we got that cleared up