Pennsylvanians, others, take note

A

alan

New member
As readers might already know, H.R. 218, which authorizes retired and or former police officers and others, to carry concealed handguns throughout the nation passed The House yesterday. This was accomplished by an unrecorded voice vote, under a suspension of the rules, according to thomas.loc.gov. On The Senate side, we have S. 253, two versions, both of which list Mr. Santorum of Pennsylvania, our junior senator, as a sponsor. Nothing was indicated re the position of Mr. Specter, the senior senator.

Interestingly, while the following is I suppose arguable, both bills send the following message to the law-abiding population of this country, in particular to that portion thereof that are licensed by their states of residence, to carry concealed arms. That a small segment of the citizenry are, based on former occupations, having been government employees (police/LE personnel) are deemed somehow more trustworthy than are that other mentioned segment of the population, people licensed to carry concealed arms. Please note that this latter segment of the population is at least equally, if not more law abiding than are retired police officers. These proposals might well send other messages too, but leave that for another day.

Stranger yet, Spoke this afternoon with NRA/ILA, and was informed that while they found aspects of this legislation questionable, they were NEUTRAL on it. Go figure that one out, if you can.

In any event, Pennsylvanians might well make note of Senator Santorum's sponsorship of this most questionable proposal, and perhaps contact his offices with a view to making their feelings on the matter known to him. Other interested parties might check thomas.loc.gov, where under S. 253, they might see if their senators are amongst this bill's sponsors, taking such action, as they might find appropriate.
 
I think the ILA's position has been "better half the cake than no cake at all."

The fact that the house passed an expansion of the firearms rights of some citizens is a big step, considering what they've been up to for the past 25 years.
 
Nope. No problem here. The more the 2A is restored - even in little bits - the better.

The liberals have gotten EVERYTHING they've gotten in the last 60 years by nibbling, nibbling, nibbling, nibbling, nibbling, nibbling, a little here, a little there.

It's a very EFFECTIVE tactic, and I have no patience for the "WAH! I WANT IT ALL!! IF I CAN'T HAVE IT ALL I DON'T WANT ANY! AND IF I CAN'T HAVE IT THEN NOBODY CAN HAVE IT!!!!" attitude that opposes every small gain we could make because it isn't enough.
 
Quartus, mvpel and any like minded others who haven't as yet spoken:

As I read your responses, you seemingly think that passage of H.R. 218 and I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, S. 253 (without nasty amendments) would be O.K., and that you both believe that passage of such legislation would be "a step in the right direction", that is movement toward the same right for "civilian" licenses. While I truly hope it turned out that you were right, I beg to differ.

Answer this, if you can. Did "trickle down eonomics" ever really work as advertised? I don't think that it did. That being the case, what makes you think that the same "trickle down" theory would work in another field of interest, for instance, the one under discussion.

Quartus:

If you don't agree with my take on this matter, fair enough. Disagree if you wish, but don't try to change what was said.

mvpel:

As I mentioned in my original post, unless I completely misunderstood what the ILA rep. I spoke with said, they were not happy with the proposal, yet they were "neutral" on it. I spent a lot of years reading engineering specifications, but their phraseology kind of throws me. In English, what do you think they really mean, I'm rather curious. If you consider House action as an "expansion" of citizens rights, fair enough, I don't quite see it that way, but then I hadn't noticed that "trickle down economics" really worked either. Some however, have sung it's praises.

Anyhow, disagreements notwithstanding, I really do hope that events prove me WRONG, and you all CORREECT here. I just don't see it happening, for when did the "land owner" even opt to reside in the sharecropper's shack? You might also think a moment on messages sent.
 
Did "trickle down eonomics" ever really work as advertised?
Click to expand...

Yes, it did. It worked VERY WELL. I would say it worked surprisingly well, except that there was no surprise about it. It would be more accurate to say, "Of COURSE it worked." The surprise would be if it did not.

Of course, the mainstream media has tried its best to paint another picture, but again, the surprise would be if it did NOT.
 
OK are we taking bets on when Feinstein will offer an amendment to this bill?

I am a former Army Officer, I have received far more training in weapons than the vast majority of ex police officers. I have a squeaky clean record. Why am I not included. Why can't I carry everywhere the Police can. Hell I am far more valuable than you folks who never served, and probably more trustworthy than the average cop. I had high clearances and was enrusted with important secrets vital to the national security. I am a special class.



PS
(I hope everyone gets the sarcasm, I understand some of you civilians may be offended.) :D :p
 
One thing at a time, Geoff. One thing at a time. If we can make a case for ONE special class, we can make a case for another.

Then another.


Then another...



That's how the other side does it. It works.
 
Me...

I'm "special" too.

First, at 71+ there's not too much time to do dumb things, so whatever is to be done must be done right. Also means I won't be around carrying another 60 years. Must be a plus in there somewhere.

Second, piggy-backing on the age thing, I'm in a group that "requires" more protection - after all, seniors are a naturally weakening breed and need all the opportunity for protection we can get. We are (supposedly) in command of a lot of $$$$$$$ and generally vote till the box cometh.

I think a special consideration of national CCARP (Concealed Carry Association of Retired People.

:)

-Andy
 
Okay, Andy, we'll get to you, too. And when it's your turn, we'll accuse the antis of age discrimination for opposing it! :D


It works.
 
Taking tiny steps may help, but there's an equilibrium past which it doesn't.

The antis may have reached that point. So many special interests have gotten various guns banned or nearly banned -- bad foreign gun parts, baaad machine guns, baaad saturday night specials -- that they can't muster enough support to get new things banned.

That's what I think H.R. 218 detractors (myself included) fear. This piecemeal approach may work for a while, but if the equilibrium is reached before there's national CCW for ordinary citizens, we get nothing. Allowances for national CCW for police, fire, EMS, ex-military, senior citizens, whatever... none of that helps most citizens.

I also think that once Congress passes national ccw for police, if they start granting national ccw to other interest groups there will be equal protection issues. Police ccw is at least somewhat defensible. Ex-police, military and ex-military, etc. are more difficult to justify. If we ignore equal protection in order to facilitate a snowball effect toward future national ccw for everyone, we end up doing substantial damage to equal protection jurisprudence. If equal protection issues are raised, that may kill any chance of ever getting national ccw for everyone.
 
Ooooh! Now THERE'S something I haven't seen before! A thoughtful approach to this, instead of just whining "It's not FAAAAIR!" etc.


Very well put, tyme. That's why I think you let a FEW of these go through to provide a fulcrum. The lever is exactly what you mentioned: equal treatment under the law.


As it is now, we have no lever, and we have no fulcrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top