What about states that have Constitutional Carry? As in, only proof of residence is required to conceal carry as a 2nd Amendment protection. Does this mean that the entire US will go Constitutional Carry?
I forget how many states already have it, but it is a lot.
My problem with constitutional carry is now niggers won't get arrested for guns - mostly stolen. They can also carry with no restrictions. The 2nd amendment did not take the 13th into consideration. Is my thinking flawed? I'd like to see the benefit of it, I'm already a CC holder.
Good point, if they try to hold up a convenience store there may be 3-4 customers that would love to blow a nigger's head off. All protected by law, awesome.
Ref: The restaurant shooting video, where sambo thought the robbery was all over, and then got rendered non-watertight by a bystander on his way to the door.
niggers need to be reminded that pulling a roscoe on folks is just the start of the festivities, and while they can do that, others are going to have their say about when the party is over.
I didn't know it was already over half. That should help push for the entire country to have Constitutional Carry, but nigger behavior is probably going to make it harder to get the entire country behind.
As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Niggers are not a moral people, though they do generally have religion. Or at least they can ape religion. Anyway the Constitution shouldn't apply to them. The fact that we as a society are under the illusion that it should apply to them will bring a reckoning when places like Chicongo, Detroit, and basically all of CA get Constitutional carry.
Not that it's stopped niggers from carrying before. It's just now you'll have to look away because it's "probably legal" for that clearly murderous pavement ape to be carrying a gun.
With reciprocity, if you have a permit from another state, you act under the permissions of the permit. Texas has constitutional carry for open and concealed carry, but I have a carry permit, which would, if reciprocity is passed, allow me to carry on a new York subway, legally, this time.
You'd probably apply for CCW in a state that allows out of state to apply and then that would convert to country wide reciprocity. That or maybe your state will set up a CCW just to give people a license they can carry to other states.
Good luck getting commyfornia cops to recognize it though even with an executive order. I've seen police encounter videos where california cops thought you need a california drivers license to drive in california.
The laws can say one thing and the cops there will do another because they really do think they are in their own country. In some ways they are. So why do they get to vote in our elections?
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:53:50 ago (+1/-0)
That may be something an executive order can accomplish. A new law may not be required and may be unconstitutional, since states get gun law authority. There is precedent when state issued permits are honored by other states as part of federal agency action/rules.
Yes, and as a part of the authority granted to the USG under the commerce clause, permits issued in one state can be compelled pony other states. I never said anything about executive orders "making law" and I never suggested that Trump needed to "make law" to push this order.
In fact, I very clearly said the a federal law regarding gun carry may be unconstitutional because states have the authority. I said that an order may be constitutional because it's a federal directive directed at the state as part of inter state commerce, making it constitutional.
I’m in commiefornia, I have a CCW permit. I live in a county that has a rational sheriff. What this means for me is now my permit will be recognized outside of this political hell hole. Last time I road tripped to the east coast I had to take care to avoid certain states while carrying…
No, I just said I wanted one, they did ask if there was any special reason. I answered no, I’m often out and about away from reasonable police response and would like to have self protection available. I then asked the deputy if I had had no answer would that be a problem? he said no, the question is required by the state but the answer is up to the sheriff.
Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole permit requirement but that is the system in place. I’m not willing to be the test case to get this corrected in a court of law. Especially in a biased California court where justice is in fact blind, blind to justice and ignores the US Constitution any way they can
Good luck getting NYC or NJ to recognize CC reciprocity. They'll do what they always do, jail your ass, and have the appeals court fight it out for years
A step in the right direction, but most carry guns now have more than 10 rounds so you'll probably have to remember to swap out your mags unless the law is written correctly.
I like it. But, CC isn't controlled by the federal government. It's a state level thing. So, Commiefornia could just ignore it and there probably isn't anything that can be done about it.
If Trump makes it an executive order, it would be used as inter-state commerce authority that the Feds do have. Then, CA could ignore it if they want, but the USG can simply withhold funding on all sorts of programs for non-compliance. They do this all the time with the Transportation Code. Remember when LA refused to raise the drinking age to 21 because New Orleans was raking in dough for Mardi Gras and Jazz fest? They stayed at 18 until the USG raised the non-compliance penalty high enough to make it hurt for LA.
True. But this will increase the number of people who have their 2nd Amendment rights partially restored in places that especially won't recognize those rights. A marginal improvement is a marginal improvement.
I agree with the sentiment, but, legally it's probably incorrect. It's one thing to say citizens have a right to own and carry and use wdapons. It's another to say the constitution permits you to conceal the weapons.
The right to open carry is absolute. Concealed carry is debatable.
The smart tactic is to make universal open carry undeniable, THEN when you have that in place, go for universal CC.
I've read the bill of rights, the right to conceal a weapon isn't in it.
Look, dude, we BOTH are in favor of CC. The difference is, I understand that the enemies of CC don't care when you put your hands on your hips and proclaim "but muh infered rights!". If you want CC to be iron clad in law, you have to make it uninfered.
Call a constitutional convention and give concealing weapons the same status as bearing weapons.
Otherwise, cry about it when feds kick down the door to your cabin. See how much they care. ProTip: They don't. You'll be dead before they go to court.
Yes, the right to BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. You can open carry all you want. Concealing weapons is a gray area. The plain English of the constitution protects bearing arms, not hiding them.
Don't be the retard who can't tell the difference between what the document says and what you want it to say. The enemies of your freedoms don't care what you want the constitution to say.
The right to BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Open carry is undeniably protected by the constitution. The right to conceal a weapon is a gray area.
This is a perfectly valid reading of the constitution.
If you want CC to be as iron clad as open carry, then call a constitutional convention and ammend the constitution to clarify. That is the correct response.
If you call a constitutional convention, "shall not be infringed" will become "reasonable gun laws are allowed".
They'll say, "we can't let felons and drug dealers shoot our kids" and every bitch at the convention will be like, yeah, felons shouldn't own guns, so we need some laws".
Dude, either you have to rely on the Constitution as written, or say "fuck the constitution". Make your choice, IDGAF. Personally, I'm more inclined to say "Fuck the constitution, I will CC my weapon regardless". But, if you are making constitutional arguments, you are going to be disappointed to find out that concealing weapons isn't in there.
Don't be so retarded naive as to believe the constitution just magically says whatever you want it to say. This isn't the Bible where you can just make shit up. It's the law of the land.
If you have a Constitutional Convention, you're rewriting the constitution. There is no requirement that the new constitution be constitutional with regards to the old constitution.
Yes, what is your point? If you want to make a constitutional argument in favor of CC, you are going to have to risk a constitutional convention to fortify that right as constitutional.
Otherwise, you just have a standard that can be recognized, or dismissed by SCOTUS on a whim. Like what happened with Roe vs Wade.
Your right to CC isn't constitutional because it isn't in the constitution. Period. It's whatever the current justices want it to be. Period.
So, recognize that, and then join me in saying "fuck the constitution, I'll at least take out 5 feds if they look at me wrong."
I never said cc was a right in the constitution, nigger. That was the udder guy.
Gun laws are just plain stupid. Not simply, "it's muh right", but more to the point, you can't stop anyone who wants to carry from carrying, so why bother trying?
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you belong in prison.
If I can legally conceal a knife in my pocket I can conceal a gun. There are no carve-outs or gray areas in the plain language of the 2A. When it was written, wars were still fought with swords, AKA arms. Sword = pocket knife, Musket = pocket pistol.
How is the right to carry absolute, yet to conceal is “debatable”. The second amendment is pretty black and white. The right to keep and bear arms openly and not concealed shall not be infringed. Lol.
Because "bear" means carry and is in 2A. There is no word for "conceal" in 2A. The Constitution only covers what it covers. Everything else is an interpretation subject to the whims of a Supreme Court Justice. See: Row vs Wade.
The second amendment is pretty black and white.
Yep, the right to BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Pretty black and white. The constitution says nothing about hiding them.
Look, dude, we are both pro CC. You just have to understand that the constitution doesn't say what you want it to say. If you want the constitution to say CC is protected, then you need to put that in the constitution.
Otherwise, it's as killable as Roe vs Wade. The correct response is to fortify the right into the constitution. Otherwise, you end up looking like Progressives with their pants down when Roe vs Wade was overturned.
Dude, how on earth do you get “it must be open for everyone to see” out of all that retarded shit you wrote? There are no limits on your right to arms in accordance eith the constitution. You are applying those limitations that simply do not exist. Any restrictions are unconstitutional. Forcing you to open carry is a restriction. They obviously dont give a fuck about fucking any of it, but that’s besides the point.
The problem here is you are talking about what you think the constitution SHOULD IDEALLY BE, as opposed to WHAT IT IS. You are confusing Natural Rights with Constitufional Rights.
You don't understand how the constitution works. The constitution only covers what it says it covers. Everything else is an interpretation by a Supreme Court Justice.
You aren't actually arguing about the constitution. You are arguing about "natural rights".
You NATURALLY have the right to conceal arms. That right can restricted through coersion from an entity more powerful than you, like a government. Because, like it or not, might does make right. The Constitution defines specific acts the government prevents itself from imposing upon you. But, ultimately, those acts must be spelled out specifically. Otherwise the government has no limit to what it can do, because it has the power to do it.
If you want to prevent the government from restricting your rights, you have to convince it to recognize those rights. That's what a Constitution is. All the states that have "Constitutional Carry" have the right go conceal carry specifically in their constitutions as inalienable rights that those states can not violate.
If it's not in the constitution, it's not constitutional. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
In all ages the people of the world, equally with individuals, have accepted words for deeds, for THEY ARE CONTENT WITH A SHOW and rarely pause to note, in the public arena, whether promises are followed by performance. Therefore we shall establish show institutions which will give eloquent proof of their benefit to progress.
Let's see how this pans out, but this sounds just like just before office in 2016 and then he did none of what he promised. What should we all say if this too is another bullshit lie or deception? When do we draw the line and stop listening altogether?
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 8 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:14:43 ago (+8/-0)
I forget how many states already have it, but it is a lot.
[ + ] SteppingRazor
[ - ] SteppingRazor 3 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:46:39 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan 7 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:29:24 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:13:37 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 4 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 21:10:39 ago (+4/-0)
The only thing that changes are that NOW niggers will have to assume that all Whites might be armed too.
So it's really simple. They get forcibly reminded what the word "majority" really means.
There will always be more armed Whites than there are armed niggers, and there are FAR more proficient Whites than proficient niggers.
FAFO
[ + ] SteppingRazor
[ - ] SteppingRazor 2 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 11:16:28 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 2 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 11:45:18 ago (+2/-0)
niggers need to be reminded that pulling a roscoe on folks is just the start of the festivities, and while they can do that, others are going to have their say about when the party is over.
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 1 point 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 16:05:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SteppingRazor
[ - ] SteppingRazor 1 point 3 weeksNov 16, 2024 17:59:19 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 1 point 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 16:04:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 0 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 16:03:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 0 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 19:23:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 2 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:25:52 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 3 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:28:23 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 4 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 21:20:20 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 1 point 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 10:02:26 ago (+1/-0)
Niggers are not a moral people, though they do generally have religion. Or at least they can ape religion. Anyway the Constitution shouldn't apply to them. The fact that we as a society are under the illusion that it should apply to them will bring a reckoning when places like Chicongo, Detroit, and basically all of CA get Constitutional carry.
Not that it's stopped niggers from carrying before. It's just now you'll have to look away because it's "probably legal" for that clearly murderous pavement ape to be carrying a gun.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:51:12 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:14:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] o0shad0o
[ - ] o0shad0o 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:59:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] soupnazi
[ - ] soupnazi 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:44:23 ago (+0/-0)
Good luck getting commyfornia cops to recognize it though even with an executive order. I've seen police encounter videos where california cops thought you need a california drivers license to drive in california.
The laws can say one thing and the cops there will do another because they really do think they are in their own country. In some ways they are. So why do they get to vote in our elections?
[ + ] JoesLegHair
[ - ] JoesLegHair 3 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 15:24:28 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:53:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CoronaHoax
[ - ] CoronaHoax 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:04:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:07:20 ago (+0/-0)
A law may be unconstitutional. An executive order may not be.
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:29:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:36:38 ago (+0/-0)
In fact, I very clearly said the a federal law regarding gun carry may be unconstitutional because states have the authority. I said that an order may be constitutional because it's a federal directive directed at the state as part of inter state commerce, making it constitutional.
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 3 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 15:06:06 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 15:24:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 15:28:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 9000timesempty
[ - ] 9000timesempty 3 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:40:07 ago (+3/-0)
fuckin a.
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:51:41 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] iSnark
[ - ] iSnark 1 point 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 00:12:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey
[ - ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 22:43:16 ago (+1/-0)
Fuck the police.
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 14:28:28 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] NoRefunds
[ - ] NoRefunds 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 22:57:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] GodsNotDead
[ - ] GodsNotDead 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 21:44:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] green_man
[ - ] green_man 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:44:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CoronaHoax
[ - ] CoronaHoax 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:02:00 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:17:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:56:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:43:45 ago (+0/-0)
But, CC isn't controlled by the federal government.
It's a state level thing.
So, Commiefornia could just ignore it and there probably isn't anything that can be done about it.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:11:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] TheBigGuyFromQueens
[ - ] TheBigGuyFromQueens 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:33:18 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:16:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 15:07:06 ago (+3/-3)
Fuck you and your continued attack on The Bill of Rights.
Everyone who supports CCP needs to be shot dead by a firing squad.
[ + ] soupnazi
[ - ] soupnazi 3 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:47:39 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 16:51:23 ago (+0/-0)
It's one thing to say citizens have a right to own and carry and use wdapons.
It's another to say the constitution permits you to conceal the weapons.
The right to open carry is absolute.
Concealed carry is debatable.
The smart tactic is to make universal open carry undeniable, THEN when you have that in place, go for universal CC.
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 17:31:25 ago (+0/-0)
You need to read The Bill of Rights, and then be shot dead by a firing squad.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:31:52 ago (+1/-0)
Some still don't understand the difference between "legal" and "lawful".
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:13:18 ago (+0/-0)
Look, dude, we BOTH are in favor of CC.
The difference is, I understand that the enemies of CC don't care when you put your hands on your hips and proclaim "but muh infered rights!".
If you want CC to be iron clad in law, you have to make it uninfered.
Call a constitutional convention and give concealing weapons the same status as bearing weapons.
Otherwise, cry about it when feds kick down the door to your cabin. See how much they care.
ProTip: They don't. You'll be dead before they go to court.
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 20:07:47 ago (+0/-0)
"shall not be infringed"
There are no disclaimers here.
You need to die by firing squad.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 20:41:39 ago (+0/-1)
You can open carry all you want.
Concealing weapons is a gray area.
The plain English of the constitution protects bearing arms, not hiding them.
Don't be the retard who can't tell the difference between what the document says and what you want it to say.
The enemies of your freedoms don't care what you want the constitution to say.
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 21:38:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:57:26 ago (+0/-0)
There are no conditions or clauses in "shall not be infringed".
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:04:29 ago (+0/-0)
Open carry is undeniably protected by the constitution.
The right to conceal a weapon is a gray area.
This is a perfectly valid reading of the constitution.
If you want CC to be as iron clad as open carry, then call a constitutional convention and ammend the constitution to clarify.
That is the correct response.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:14:27 ago (+0/-0)
They'll say, "we can't let felons and drug dealers shoot our kids" and every bitch at the convention will be like, yeah, felons shouldn't own guns, so we need some laws".
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:25:56 ago (+0/-0)*
Make your choice, IDGAF.
Personally, I'm more inclined to say "Fuck the constitution, I will CC my weapon regardless".
But, if you are making constitutional arguments, you are going to be disappointed to find out that concealing weapons isn't in there.
Don't be so retarded naive as to believe the constitution just magically says whatever you want it to say.
This isn't the Bible where you can just make shit up. It's the law of the land.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:40:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:46:44 ago (+0/-0)*
If you want to make a constitutional argument in favor of CC, you are going to have to risk a constitutional convention to fortify that right as constitutional.
Otherwise, you just have a standard that can be recognized, or dismissed by SCOTUS on a whim. Like what happened with Roe vs Wade.
Your right to CC isn't constitutional because it isn't in the constitution.
Period.
It's whatever the current justices want it to be.
Period.
So, recognize that, and then join me in saying "fuck the constitution, I'll at least take out 5 feds if they look at me wrong."
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 20:17:03 ago (+0/-0)
Gun laws are just plain stupid. Not simply, "it's muh right", but more to the point, you can't stop anyone who wants to carry from carrying, so why bother trying?
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you belong in prison.
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:20:24 ago (+0/-0)
When it was written, wars were still fought with swords, AKA arms.
Sword = pocket knife, Musket = pocket pistol.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 19:28:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] JudyStroyer
[ - ] JudyStroyer 0 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 05:18:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 16:45:57 ago (+0/-0)
There is no word for "conceal" in 2A.
The Constitution only covers what it covers.
Everything else is an interpretation subject to the whims of a Supreme Court Justice.
See: Row vs Wade.
Pretty black and white.
The constitution says nothing about hiding them.
Look, dude, we are both pro CC.
You just have to understand that the constitution doesn't say what you want it to say.
If you want the constitution to say CC is protected, then you need to put that in the constitution.
Otherwise, it's as killable as Roe vs Wade.
The correct response is to fortify the right into the constitution.
Otherwise, you end up looking like Progressives with their pants down when Roe vs Wade was overturned.
Don't be that retard.
[ + ] JudyStroyer
[ - ] JudyStroyer 0 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 17:10:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksNov 15, 2024 17:33:33 ago (+0/-0)*
You are confusing Natural Rights with Constitufional Rights.
You don't understand how the constitution works.
The constitution only covers what it says it covers.
Everything else is an interpretation by a Supreme Court Justice.
You aren't actually arguing about the constitution.
You are arguing about "natural rights".
You NATURALLY have the right to conceal arms.
That right can restricted through coersion from an entity more powerful than you, like a government.
Because, like it or not, might does make right.
The Constitution defines specific acts the government prevents itself from imposing upon you.
But, ultimately, those acts must be spelled out specifically.
Otherwise the government has no limit to what it can do, because it has the power to do it.
If you want to prevent the government from restricting your rights, you have to convince it to recognize those rights.
That's what a Constitution is.
All the states that have "Constitutional Carry" have the right go conceal carry specifically in their constitutions as inalienable rights that those states can not violate.
If it's not in the constitution, it's not constitutional.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo -1 points 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:23:48 ago (+0/-1)*
Let's see how this pans out, but this sounds just like just before office in 2016 and then he did none of what he promised. What should we all say if this too is another bullshit lie or deception? When do we draw the line and stop listening altogether?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 weeksNov 14, 2024 18:55:20 ago (+1/-0)