Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

Unread postby k_semler » Mon 17 Oct 2005, 00:52:14

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01243:

Write your representatives! This bill proposes to grant nationwide reciprocity to any valid CCW holder. If this passes, any citizen of the United States which has a valid CCW may carry into another state. We need this bill to pass. Here is what I said to my representative:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ear Representative McMorris,

I am writing you to encourage your support for H.R. 1243, (Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005). Granting nationwide reciprocity for CCW permits would greatly help reduce violent crime, by allowing the law-abiding citizen a means of self defense. As you are probably aware, Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales established that the police force is not responsible for protecting the individual, but merely society as a whole.

As such, the only defense that a person can truly count on is what they are legally capable of doing. Granting nationwide CCW reciprocity would greatly enhance personal protection, and reduce legal hassles associated with preparation to use lethal defense if necessary.

Further, passage of this bill would also allow citizens to not fret about if their home state CCW permit is honored in the state they are traveling into. This would greatly reduce the amount of regulatory violations by otherwise peaceful citizens of the United States of America who seek no more than the ability to protect their families life, their life, and innocent victims. Mrs. McMorris, please support this bill. Passage of this bill would help make the United States of America a much safer place.
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
k_semler
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington

Re: H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

Unread postby fossil_fuel » Mon 17 Oct 2005, 20:28:59

my opinion on this is mixed. when my support of states rights collides with my support of gun rights, i'm not sure what to make of it. i hate to see the feds gain any more power over the states.
User avatar
fossil_fuel
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon 03 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

Unread postby k_semler » Tue 18 Oct 2005, 02:37:12

Image

According to the map, all we need is two more states to pass a constitutional amendment allowing CCW anywhere in the USA. It would be kind of repetitious of the second amendment, but whatever it takes. What I would really like to happen is repealing of the 1934 GCA and all subsequent statutes. That would be a wet dream come true. :)
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
k_semler
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington

Re: H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

Unread postby bobaloo » Tue 18 Oct 2005, 18:39:38

So what's the story with four states in the rural midwest that refuse to issue permits?

I know that the permit system was an outgrowth of the post-civil war methods to keep blacks unarmed, guess it could still be an ongoing fear of armed black men, other than that it's hard to understand. Used to live in Missouri and for a right wing republican state they just got right to carry in the last few years.

BTW, just read the Oregon Constitution, it's intersting, in that it says that the people have the right to bear arms for their own defense, none of that "well ordered militia" BS.
User avatar
bobaloo
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

Unread postby fossil_fuel » Tue 18 Oct 2005, 19:11:58

well, illinois is quite leftist due to the influence of chicago. in the same way that NY would be a red state if not for NYC. wisconsin, kansas and nebraska surprise me though...
User avatar
fossil_fuel
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon 03 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: H.R. 1243 (SAFE Act of 2005)

Unread postby k_semler » Wed 19 Oct 2005, 00:35:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobaloo', '
')BTW, just read the Oregon Constitution, it's intersting, in that it says that the people have the right to bear arms for their own defense, none of that "well ordered militia" BS.


From the Washington State Constitution:

(Article 1, Section 7)--
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

(Article 1, Section 8 )--
No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.

(Article 1, Section 12)--
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

(Article 1, Section 13)--
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it.


(Article 1, Section 16 [as amended])--
Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or paid into court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public: Provided, That the taking of private property by the state for land reclamation and settlement purposes is hereby declared to be for public use.

(Article 1, Section 18 )--
The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

(Article 1, Section 24)--
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

(Article 1, Section 29)--
The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

(Article 1, Section 30)--
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

(Article 1, Section 31)--
No standing army shall be kept up by this state in time of peace, and no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of its owner, nor in time of war except in the manner prescribed by law.
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
k_semler
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron