the push for sense-able and consistent country wide gun laws

Discussion in 'handgun related' started by Grumpy, Nov 25, 2016.

  1. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

  2. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

    companys that have made substantial financial contributions,
    to groups whose goal is to ELIMINATE the 2nd amendment
  3. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

    watch the video, its suddenly become obvious to congress members
    (when and only after some wacko starts deliberately shooting congress members)

    that it might just be helpful too to have access to personal firearms rather than to be butchered like sheep, and be able to defend yourself if someone trys to kill you! (and that there,s NOT always some cop or body guard instantly on sight to protect you, so your response-able to protect yourself at times)

    "Of course, Congress critters want to have their own right to CCW without having to obtain a permit,(constitutional carry) but at least perhaps even the anti-gunners there are beginning to see the light and understand what we have been trying to tell them all along."{"search":["concealed+carry+reciprocity+act"]}

    Introduced in House (01/03/2017)
    Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

    This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.

    A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

    Additionally, the bill specifies that a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state: (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  4. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

  5. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

  6. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

    (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday blocked a gun regulation in Washington, D.C., that limited the right to carry a handgun in public to those with a special need for self-defense, handing a victory to gun rights advocates.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's 2-1 ruling struck down the local government's third major attempt in 40 years to limit handgun rights, citing what it said was scant but clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on the right to bear arms.

    The District of Columbia may appeal the three-judge panel's ruling to the full appeals court, potentially a more favorable audience as seven of its 11 members were appointed by Democratic presidents. All three of the panel members involved in Tuesday's ruling are Republican appointees.

    Judge Thomas Griffith, writing the majority opinion, said constitutional challenges to gun laws "create peculiar puzzles for the courts," noting that the U.S. Supreme Court's first in-depth review "is younger than the first iPhone."

    That 2008 ruling in a landmark case called District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a D.C. law that banned all handgun possession in the city. It was a major victory for supporters of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects gun ownership rights.

    The city council tried again to ban carrying weapons, a law that was also struck down by the courts, and now is trying a third time to restrict the right to carry handguns in the city.

    Griffith wrote that the Supreme Court's Heller ruling made it clear that "the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach."

    Some ambiguity exists due to the first 13 words of the Second Amendment, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The D.C. law that is being challenged directs the police chief to create rules limiting those who can carry handguns to people showing good reason to need one.

    Writing a dissenting opinion, Judge Karen Henderson cited case law finding that the "core" right to bear arms is for self-defense inside the home.

    "Regulations restricting public carrying are all the more compelling in a geographically small but heavily populated urban area like the District," Henderson said.

    The National Rifle Association and the office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had no immediate comment.

    Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Tom Brown
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  7. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

    police generally are forced to deal with the slime and dregs, of society criminals by definition ignore the laws
    you can get emotional and ignore the facts but the truth is a few more criminals getting treated without the
    your just mis-understood kids, liberal mentality"
    and replace it with a
    mentality and

    Legal approach has a long proven and well documented effect on reducing crime and violence.






    it may be politically uncomfortable to face the facts but they ARE THE TRUTH. ]



    The facts: (yeah liberal,s hate FACTS)

    Charges of unlawful possession of a gun – mostly by convicted felons – are up 23 percent in the second quarter of 2017 from the same time period in 2016.
    The number of defendants charged with the crime of using a firearm in a crime of violence or drug trafficking has increased by 10 percent.
    The DOJ is on pace to prosecute the highest number of federal firearms cases since 2005.
    During the Obama administration, federal prosecutions against individuals attempting to illegally buy a firearm dropped 40 percent.
    During the Obama administration, prosecutions of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person subject to a court order dropped a whopping 66 percent.
    Since Jan. 20 -- when Donald Trump became president -- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested 41,318 people known or suspected of being in the country illegally.

    yeah I know this is hard for liberals to grasp.....
    removing them from the population,
    exponentially making the risk
    of being caught and convicted and imprisoned,
    for committing violent criminal acts
    making the RISK far out weight the potential monetary gains,
    is a well proven route too reducing crime

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
  8. T-Test

    T-Test Well-Known Member

    If our legislature would act on the laws already on the books, and up the MANDATORY sentences for felons with guns to 25 years just for having a gun, and the the maximum sentence for the crime that was committed, no matter what their age-18-35, they wouldn't get near a gun again or they would get one too get back at the system or person that sentenced them, and for that they should be shot on sight and be done with them. Some people just need to die, for they will always be a menace to society. JMHO
  9. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

  10. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

  11. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

    GUYS you need to take the time and effort to let the political types know that your watching their actions and want to maintain your rights, if you just assume they will do the logical and correct things your a damn fool...
    the track record is abundantly clear you either stand up and demand your rights be maintained or they will steal limit and eliminate , tax or licence, everything and every freedom and every right they can.

    you can,t have a police state that strictly enforced the dictates of a central federal government, with a well armed population, thus the liberals can,t stand the idea of a free population ,the government can,t make absolute mandates too.

    he Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”

    The founders were also clear about what they meant by the term militia. Richard Henry Lee stated it very succinctly: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” In other words, whether a militia is the proper holder of arms or the people is irrelevant, because they are one and the same. Only by ignoring the words of the founders, as well as the basic rules of grammar, can the progressives’ case even appear valid. Once the ignorance is cured, their case crumbles to dust.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  12. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

    read the links

    yes the libs are losing their minds,
    and as always predicting the streets awash in ankle deep blood of innocent children
    running in the streets of every city the day this bill gets passed...
    facts and decades of statistics , be damned if it does not support the liberal agenda, dream, of total gun confiscation.
    the simple facts are that the vast ,majority of people do not commit violent crimes and the greater the potential for the victim to be well armed, thus increasing the risk of being arrested or shot there is, because the potential victim may be armed and able to defend themselves, effectively the lower the potential gains from robbery and violent assaults will not seem too be worth the risk, too the criminals.
    there's no logical reason why anyone can spend all their life not committing crimes,in most states that have a concealed carry provision, but simply by crossing a state boundary be put in jail for decades and incur huge legal expenses, simply because they feel safer being armed and have the potential tool to defend themselves,as they peacefully go through life, not bothering anyone.
    thats about as logical as arresting all males at age 18 or older that cross the state boundary, because they potentially could commit rape




    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  13. Grumpy

    Grumpy The Grumpy Grease Monkey Staff Member

Share This Page