Watch out for Trojan Horse II

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by partdeux, Dec 3, 2017.

  1. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    4,686
    277
    83
    AKA Reciprocity

    As Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus, I’m blowing the whistle on the swamp. Last week, Republicans in the House fast tracked through committee HR 4477, a gun bill titled “fix-NICS.” The Senate version of this bill is cosponsored by Senator Dianne Feintstein and Senator Chuck Schumer and it will send $625 million over 5 years to states to expand the national background check database. The bill will also advance former President Obama’s agenda of pressuring every branch of the administration (such as the Veteran’s Administration) to submit thousands of more names to the NICS background check database to deny gun purchases. The House bill is identical in every way to the Senate bill except the House bill will also commission a study on bump-stocks.

    What you don’t know, and what virtually no one in Washington wants you to know, is that House leadership plans to merge the fix-NICS bill with popular Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation, HR 38, and pass both of them with a single vote. Folks, this is how the swamp works. House leadership expects constituents to call their representatives demanding a vote on the reciprocity bill, when in fact the only vote will be on the two combined bills.
    https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905
     
    Patrick Sperry and MisterMcCool like this.
  2. sigman84

    sigman84 Well-Known Member

    1,344
    26
    48
    These traitors need to be dealt with like all other traitors.
     

  3. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63
    The national resprosity bill should be opposed on its own.
    Now with this add on maybe gun owners will wake up and get on their reps to oppose this bill.
     
  4. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,922
    2,625
    113
    nothing new. they have been attaching amendments to bills to get things passed for many years.

    yes the entire bill needs to be opposed and voted down.

    i think several people, myself included, warned about the passing of a National Reciprocity Bill. be careful of what you ask for, i think was the message we were trying to pass along. i think maybe it becomes clear now why some of us were saying that.
     
    Balota and Ghost1958 like this.
  5. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63
    I am rather proud of Rep Massey stating the mess NICS is.
    Alluding that it should be axed.

    NICS should never have been law in the first place.
     
  6. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,922
    2,625
    113
    don't be so quick to like my post Mr. Ghost, because i do approve of the NCIS background check like it stands, but feel there should be more enforcement of present gun laws.

    as a law abiding citizen it has never denied me the ability to acquire the firearms i have wanted or needed at any time.

    but, i'm out of this thread, because i see it just going round and round like any others along this subject matter.

    i'm out, ya'll enjoy the nonsense!
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  7. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63

    I know you love NICS and gun laws.
    I liked your post because you had the good sense to see the national reciprocity bill for what it was.

    Hopefully with reps like Massey, Rodgers and Paul, we may be able to rid ourselves of NICS. After crushing NR first of course.
     
  8. sigman84

    sigman84 Well-Known Member

    1,344
    26
    48
    Now explain to me why you don't like the national reciprocity bill in the original form without this Trojan horse the liberals are trying to insert into it. I've only read a small portion of the bill so maybe I missed something.
     
  9. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,749
    1,096
    113
  10. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63
    I'm guessing this is directed at me.

    A federal act forcing states to recognize each others permits is just a move to get the feds nose under the states rights tent.

    It's a Trojan horse itself.
    As written it looks harmless enough. But as proven by this attempt to slip something else into it. Once passed it will not remain in its original form.
    Six months toa yr tops it will be used by the fed to set "universal standards" IE level the field forcing the most gun friendly states to tighten regulations to the level of most restricted states.

    Take heed to the fact republicans voted this present NICS fix baloney out of committee as well as dems.

    Any federal law concerning guns ,no matter how good it looks, will always be an attempt to further gun control in the end.


    The last reason is NR in all truth is Congress passing a unconstitutional law to force states to accept gun permits that have no constitutional basis to even exist.
     
    JimRau, divinginn and sigman84 like this.
  11. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,565
    222
    63
    I don't think it will evolve to that or hope not anyway.
    What about marriage licenses , drivers licenses, interstate commerce, and so on?
     
    kfox75, locutus and sigman84 like this.
  12. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,565
    222
    63
    The Second Amendment, as all Amendments is the Law of the Land.
    Our State Constitution had the phrase inserted, to provide for regulation with an eye to prohibit crime, or some such.
    I don't remember when it was added either.
    However I hope that the Constitutionalists will show enough support, that in the not too distant future, for POTUS to pursue the States and Localities denying our Rights by with holding funds, declaring these States in non compliance with thee Constitution, denying us our Rights and if need be taking them to the Supreme Court. Once three more anti Constitution or anti Constitution original intent or whatever are out the door.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  13. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,922
    2,625
    113
    the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, then they soon afterwards established the Supreme Court and justices to interpret the constitutionality of the laws.

    and Trump is having enough problems with getting the healthcare insurance, and tax reform pushed through, along with the travel bans from certain countries, the border wall and illegal immigrants right now, it's not likely that him challenging the states rights on overturning gun laws is a huge priority right now for him.

    our best bet is that if another justice retires, or dies, is that he's able to nominate and get approved another justice like Gorsuch.
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  14. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63



    Small correction.
    The founders didn't give SCOTUS the power of judicial review ie interpretation of the constitutionality of laws.

    Nor is it mentioned anywhere in the COTUS.

    SCOTUS ruled themselves that authority in a politically influenced ruling after the fact by quite a few years.
     
  15. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,749
    1,096
    113
    And where 4xac
    And where, exactly did you get your law degree???
     
    kfox75 and Dallas53 like this.
  16. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63

    Marriage license, drivers license, are in a totally different universe that a constitutional protected right.
     
  17. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,922
    2,625
    113
    as Mr. Locutus asked, and i'll ask as well. which law school did you graduate from? have you studied law or practiced law? do you have law degree?

    you know when you show us your law degree and the college you graduated from, then your legal opinion might have some merit, but until then it's just an opinion from some with a radical extremist viewpoint.
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  18. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63


    Where did you?

    Nobody needs one to know that.
    Its historical fact.
    All one needs is to be able to read. And willing to accept the COTUS as written.

    The latter is the difficult part for some.
     
  19. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,922
    2,625
    113
    and most lawyers assert the opinion, that a person who represents themselves in the manner of legal matters has a fool for client!
     
    locutus and kfox75 like this.
  20. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    509
    400
    63


    I can readily see where that would apply. :rolleyes:

    Been working out pretty good for Ryan Bundy though in oregon and Nevada so far.
    Feds backed by unconstitutional claims and laws are having a really hard time fixing the juries to get a conviction. After multiple trials :)
     
    tinbucket and sigman84 like this.