A dangerous proposal in Congress

[biku324]

Which parts? Unrestricted concealed carry in your car or on your property? Simple purchase with no permits and no waiting period? Open carry except where prohibited by local irdinance? Unrestricted purchase of ammo and reloading components online? 'Shall issue' CCL? 'Stand your ground' for criminal liability since 1912?

 

[steelslaver]

As a citizen of this country with no criminal record with a valid permit from my state off residence, I am not allowed to carry a viable means of self protection upon my person in your state.

That part right there is HUGE

 

[Yaworski]

You'll need a better example. Opponents block German neo-Nazi march in Mainz – DW – 07/16/2022

That was the "New Strong Party."

However, we have "The German penal code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, both off- and online. This includes sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler."

That's not freedom of speech.

 

[biku324]

Perhaps your state should join the compact we have with 23 other states. We DO believe in states' rights, correct?

 

[steelslaver]

Perhaps your state should join the compact we have with 23 other states. We DO believe in states' rights, correct?

Yes WE do, it is just that you and your state do not actually believe that the Bill of Rights applies. Your fine with restriction free speech, the right to bear arms and the freedom of assembly. I am not

I also believe your state entered into an agreement with all the states to obey those.

Also the laws of your state, that you quoted most certainly would have applied to the actions of the founding fathers. The second amendment was NOT written about duck hunting, but defending ourselves from both individuals and oppressive government.

While I am not a big fan of most of the militia organizations that exist, I do believe that they have every right to exist under the constitution.

 

[biku324]

Your opinion is unrelated to facts in this matter.

 

[steelslaver]

Your opinion is unrelated to facts in this matter.

Restricting, gun rights, free speech and assembly is exactly the subject of the bill in question,

Your willingness to accept it is only your opinion which flies in the face of the Bill of Rights

 

[BAM-BAM]

When you aren't winning the hearts and minds...... Gaslight!

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

In the 1930s the erstwhile "liberal democracies" of Western Europe banned the wearing of political uniforms to thwart the home grown fascist parties.
Using fascist methods to fight fascism.
In my 4 years in the Army 1967-1971-and I was a Green Beret-I met only one NCO who was a gun guy, nobody into martial arts/hand to hand combat.
These "militia" groups do a better job of training than the Army does IMHO.
"Well regulated" refers to drill and discipline, the drills were often called "tactics" because that was how they actually fought. Baron Von Steuben's great accomplishment was that he got the Main Army drilled and the drill was standardized. Everybody was on the same sheet of music.
The militiaman provided his own firearm, kept it at home. It was HIS. The only requirement was that it was supposed to be .75 caliber, like the Brown Bess. How much difference that made with smoothbores...?
I have seen one reenactor show up as militiaman with a fowling piece, not "standard" but very authentic.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

There is another factor at play here.......................

These people are terrorized - OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lrrifleman]

Keeping in mind Bruen, the antis have to negate: 10 US code subsection 246, plus the legislation that created the NBPRP, the DCM, and the CMP. Plus, the antis appear to be banking on the loyalty of the military.

 

[biku324]

Restricting, gun rights, free speech and assembly is exactly the subject of the bill in question,

Your willingness to accept it is only your opinion which flies in the face of the Bill of Rights

I'd mildly disagree. The 34 year-old New Mexico law infringed no one's rights under the First or Second Amendment, both of which exist in stronger form in the NM Constitution. The only thing that happened is that folks who were training with firearms to commit crimes could no longer do so legally.

Do recall that the Founders knew they were committing treason against the King when they signed the Declaration of Independence. It's attributed to Benjamin Franklin that they were explicitly aware that, "...we must all hang together, or ... we shall all hang separately."

NM Constitution:

Sec. 17. [Freedom of speech and press; libel.]
Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

 

[Yaworski]

The only thing that happened is that folks who were training with firearms to commit crimes could no longer do so legally.

ROTFL. I have a feeling that this is going to be used like the cash confiscation thing except instead of "prove that you aren't a drug kingpin" it will be "prove you aren't planning a crime!"

 

[biku324]

It hasn't in 34 years. And there is no confiscation (civil forfeiture) clause. Beyond that, the 'burden of proof' to show you are training for an illegal purpose is on the state. This is criminal, not civil, law.

 

[Yaworski]

It hasn't in 34 years.

Times change. Didn't your the governor of your freedom loving state try to ban carry by executive order?

And there is no confiscation (civil forfeiture) clause.

Never said there was.

Beyond that, the 'burden of proof' to show you are training for an illegal purpose is on the state.

LOL. That's the claim but not always the reality.

 

[biku324]

1. Yes. The courts quickly stopped her.
2. You clearly expressed your "...feeling..." about this becoming a subterfuge for confiscation.
3. That is always the reality. Don't like it? Find a more just system Anywhere.

 

[Yaworski]

3. That is always the reality.

The reality is that the state and its agents will abuse any power that they manage to seize and despise any limitations on their power.

 

[biku324]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[Yaworski]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

"Thank God that we need a search warrant," said no cop ever.
"Thank God we have to tell arrestees their rights," said no cop ever.

 

[biku324]

Ah, that's right - I forgot your bias. No biggie.