Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:19:53 PM EDT
I'm writing to my state reps about the 'NC S-A Rifle Owners Act of 2002". It is an idea (bill) of mine. When it becomes law (is ratified and enacted) it will make the state of NC have an official position and endorsement of the benefits and uses of lawful and legal s-a rifles. It covers every s-a rifle legal in NC- which is pretty much all of them. The legitimate uses I have recognized in the act are as follows: 1) Self defense and defense of other people/animals 2) Hunting 3) Trapping 4) Target and competition shooting 5) Collecting 6)Enforcement of NC and local laws 7) Enforcement of Federal laws 8) Defense of the homeland and NC (by civilians, LEOs and military). This act applies to ALL semi-auto rifles in North Carolina. CRC
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 6:34:43 PM EDT
It still can't circumvent Fed law. And it is more of a "Congressionial Recognition" type thing... Like, the US Congress passes these little "Recognition" bills every year..
The US Congress Would Hereby like to aknowledge the importance of Polish-Ameicans in the American fabric...
View Quote
They are always touchy-feely, and A-Political. Never tackle a political issue. They are also usually racial in nature, used as a device to aknowledge African Americans whenever there is spare paper to be used.. [img]http://old.mcuzi.com/ubb/icons/icon29.gif[/img] Good luck. McUZI
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 6:35:37 PM EDT
Oh yeah. Isolating "Semi-Auto" rifles in a specifically written bill is bad no matter what it's intent.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 6:38:44 PM EDT
The purpose of this act is to simply get the state of NC (where I am) to officaly say, in effect, s-a rifles are good and not evil. Of course state law can't circumvent the Feds. Can't believe in states rights now can we? CRC
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 7:29:14 PM EDT
When it comes to "State's Rights" I don't think they should [i]ever[/i] override our fundamental right to arms. If the Second Amendment protection of the right to arms was incorporated under the "priveledges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment against state infringement like every other "right of the people" in the Bill of Rights, Morton Grove and Washington D.C. and Chicago wouldn't have handgun bans. California and New York wouldn't have assault rifle bans. No state would prohibit possession of Class III firearms. In short, the entire country would have one set of rules when it came to the right to arms - the Federal set. As it is, the right to arms remains the [i]ONLY[/i] right of the people enumerated under the Bill of Rights not incorporated. For christ's sake, even the [i]Third[/i] Amendment had an Appeals Court decision incorporating it. State's Rights is great, but not when it comes to screwing with our [i]fundamental enumerated rights[/i].
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 7:33:39 PM EDT
If you're interested in NC law, why not re-write the hokey CC permit law. I got one, and basically can't carry anywhere with it. Useless piece of empty-promise law.
Top Top