Second. While I agree people should be voting on principle most in the GOP are not. The namesake of this website is a prime example. People are so obsessed with defeating Obama they are more worried about finding that candidate who has the best shot at beating him instead of finding someone whose personal platform best represents them. In New Hampshire when asked what the most important quality was for the candidate they were voting 62% of Romney’s voters stated beating Obama was the most important quality while only 14% of his supporters picked true conservative. Even more damning between a choice of what was more important issues or personal qualities Romney supporters picked personal qualities 54% of the time while voters overall picked issues 56% of the time.

We are basically about to get our own Obama… and we deserve it.

Also there is no evidence to support that if both houses are Republican that conservative policy would flow from it. Recent history in fact suggests otherwise.

The smallest deed is far better than the grandest intention. Do something!

Maybe someday the SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: by what definition of “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is regulation and/or restriction of by whom, how, and where that right is exercised, not a restriction? But until then, under our current legal system, the SCOTUS has ruled that concealed carry is a privilege and the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The power of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be clarified in the courts and SCOTUS; and, unless the ability of the Federal Government to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disenfranchised. The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.

The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum lawful and necessary criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. If, those criteria are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.

Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversely identifying those people that have NOT been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont’s, whereby each and every time a person’s ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disenfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been “averted”. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people’s 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facie assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Federal Government level necessary or even permissible?” If those criteria and/or restrictions are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria and/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.

Once a person has been certified as NOT being disenfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disenfranchised A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person’s ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples’ rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.

In summary, unless all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits.

Our goal should remain, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum that are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. While an extreme goal may be to totally eliminate those regulations and/or restrictions, I believe that will never happen because no one, except the delusional, truly believes that absolutely anyone, without exception, should be allowed to own and carry a firearm anywhere. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, could we have Constitutional Carry.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577101074044272042.html?grcc=7ed3d6b12bdf041cd71b86662a24e481Z0&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news