Thank you Jim. I could not have stated that point better myself. All the more reason to count our lucky stars that Hillary did not win and now have a 6-3 Supreme Court liberal advantage and snuff out the second amendment with the blessings of the UN.
Drop the mic moment if there ever was one.
(Now everyone else stand by for the classic change of subject moment, exactly like what a wife executes whenever she loses a debate.)

He has every step of the way, why wouldn't he continue? McConnell's legacy will be the courts. Packing it with conservatives, top to bottom. Buys us twenty years, maybe more.

I would prefer to leave it as it is now with each state determining its own laws on CC. Another layer of bureaucracy is something we don't need.

I refuse to travel and spend money where my permits are not honored.

What would happen to states like NY , CA, MA who nearly refuse their residents permits.........if the federal government allowed MY permits to be valid in NYC but not someone who is a resident ? I think federal legislation would by necessity, have to void all state laws on CC

You can argue all you want about CC.
The point is we have already lost our 2nd A rights. The intent of the 2nd A was to allow citizens to be armed as a defense to a tyrannical Gov't.
The words "shall not be infringed" have already gone out the door.

There are limits on types of arms, size of magazines, age restrictions, and host of other rules that "infringe" on my rights.
Carrying a gun concealed is part of that right. The 2nd A makes no mention on how the arms are to be carried only that they the right shall not be infringed.

And why are they on this forum then.? if anything needed two things to make one BETTER its guns and traps..Period!
Must we drown every fur-bearer or crown it with a stick, to save the nation of gun violence?

Bob Hope musta had alot of brothers.

Yes, if we passed a national CC law, it would control over state law. It would presumably include a national CC licensure procedure. You would be able to go to CA with a concealed gun on a national permit, and Californians would be able to do it too.

Jim

What are the chances CA would honor that law any more than they do federal immigration law ?

its time for the supremes to admit that making concealed carry a crime is an infringement and unconstitutionall

btw the definition of license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. How can CC be illegal???????????????????????

SCOTUS has never addressed that question that I am aware of. Scalia also said, in Heller, that states retain the right to impose restrictions on firearms and CC. I wonder how that would affect a national CC law ?

We have the right to "keep" (possess) and "bear" (carry) arms, under the Second Amendment.

I think the Heller and MacDonald cases only dealt with the right to keep arms. Nothing about bear, if I recall right.

Imho, we do have a Constitutional right to carry, concealed or open. I don't know if the SC would agree.

Jim

If every international treaty has such a clause, what is the point of the USA being involved in any of them? If our law over rides it, there is no need or use for it. If other countries have similar clauses and they can also not follow the international treaty, then the un and the treaty seems to be political posturing.
Most every politician postures sooner or later. Doing so in support of the USA is in my opinion a better example of leadership than posturing to make the USA look bad, or submissive.

If there is no conflict between a treaty and US law, then the treaty can have the force of law, once ratified by the Senate.

Jim

Can an international treaty supercede state gun laws? I believe it can. That's a good enough reason to oppose the UN treaty on trade in arms.

Didn't the UN treaty on trade in arms also establish a gun registration? I'll bet courts would say this didn't violate the Constitution and therefore this element of the treaty would be binding on the US. The establishment of the gun registration would be justification enough to oppose the UN treaty.

I'll not attack you, but tell you that you are very wrong.

The points you make have nothing to do with this, other than the sovereignty part, which any treaty that restricts what we do invades our sovereignty.

If you don't think this is like Clinton's ban that I mentioned and you must not have seen, what is the purpose of this treaty?
I guess that requiring an end user registry for 20 years doesn't go against our laws?

There's other points, but I have a feeling you already know them as a simple look at this on Wikipedia spells out enough without digging deeper.

selective hearing at it's finest Hippie.

Darn glad we finally have a President with normal Americans in his best interests!!!!

MAGA.

Heller was specifically addressing "keep" but if I remember correctly, Scalia made derisive remarks, in the majority opinion....to the effect that ..surely the founders did not mean the people could "bear" arms solely in their homes...........which was the tack the minority was taking.....along with "bear" in the militia context.

But critique my thinking here Jim. If Congress decides they have the authority to put into statute, CC and/or open carry...............1. where do they get that authority ? 2. Wouldn't it follow that the opposite is also true.....that they could prohibit CC/OC ? But how could that be true if 2A already secures that right beyond the reach of congress ? .....and 3. What would that say about the 10th amendment and federalism in general ?