The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 23, 2017, 09:00 PM   #26
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
Quote:
The core of the debate is not about carrying a gun or driving. It's about preserving what little is left of state sovereignty and not further expanding the power of the federal government.
As it SHOULD be
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 23, 2017, 09:17 PM   #27
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,106
Thanks Frank , I did not know states recognizing other states drivers lic was not mandated by the Federal government .

Quote:
The core of the debate is not about carrying a gun or driving. It's about preserving what little is left of state sovereignty and not further expanding the power of the federal government.
On the whole I agree , how ever as we all know sometimes states like to infringe on individual rights and it can be helpful to have the feds there to step in .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 23, 2017, 09:28 PM   #28
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
Quote:
On the whole I agree , how ever as we all know sometimes states like to infringe on individual rights and it can be helpful to have the feds there to step in.
Except when the feds infringe more.

I can see why folks in some states want National Reciprocity. But I live in a state with good firearm laws and I don't want the feds coming in and trying to level the playing field. I like the laws in my state, that's part of why I live here. I don't want them changed to meet some federally defined standard because the odds are virtualy nil of it being the same or better than what I'm currently working with.

And that's apart from my objection on general principle--that I am virtually always opposed to the federal government involving itself in matters where it's not already involved. Not just because their track record is dismal but also because they're already far too involved in far too many things.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 24, 2017, 09:52 AM   #29
Danoobie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2017
Posts: 351
Paul Ryan, after blathering incessantly for over 20 years
about how he was "the servant of the little man" finally
had a chance to prove he really was
"a man of the people", and he sold us out. No surprises
there, but let's remember this, next election.
Danoobie is offline  
Old September 24, 2017, 08:43 PM   #30
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,643
Quote:
But I live in a state with good firearm laws and I don't want the feds coming in and trying to level the playing field.
This is my biggest concern. If a national reciprocity proposal gains real momentum, expect Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the rest to do everything in their power to poison it. They will insist on all sorts of exceptions and restrictions. I'd expect to see things like legally-binding "no gun" signs, a ban on carry on any government property, and opt-out clauses for individual cities and/or counties.

What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 24, 2017, 09:51 PM   #31
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,106
Although I agree there are those that would try to water it down . The way the Dems have been united . I can't see any of them voting for any carry laws . That may be the reason it appears it's dead in the water . That and as the last few posters have pointed out . It very well may hurt a few states so those (maybe few republican) senators in states in which it may actually weaken there carry laws wont vote for it either .

My guess is they barely have 40 votes depending on how it's written .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 25, 2017, 10:08 AM   #32
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
This is my biggest concern. If a national reciprocity proposal gains real momentum, expect Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the rest to do everything in their power to poison it. They will insist on all sorts of exceptions and restrictions. I'd expect to see things like legally-binding "no gun" signs, a ban on carry on any government property, and opt-out clauses for individual cities and/or counties.

What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
That is also my concern. National reciprocity may, at least in the short term, make it slightly easier regarding gun rights for 10 or so anti-gun states but substantially harder for the 40 or so pro-gun states. The law will be loaded with so many vague parts that it will be incredibly easy for a bureaucracy to warp it into whatever the current administration wants...
ATN082268 is offline  
Old September 26, 2017, 10:42 PM   #33
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
And that is almost a given. Nearly 50% of this nation's population live in less than 5% of the land area (in major urban centers). This populace is more than happy to live with arcane gun laws, and if they aren't they are free to move. Because of the above, any federal regulation on national reciprocity will impose on 95% of the land area some of the wishes of that 50% who freely live in areas with arcane gun laws. Why? Well its what half of the people want, that's why. Plus most in the federal government could care less about our 2A rights, even the ones who try to be seen as our allies (yes you republicans).

Which precisely explains why I'm not a proponent of national reciprocity. Probably 2/3rds of the States currently have pretty decent (I.e. free) gun laws. Were we to enact national reciprocity, the minority (being some of the most populas states) will not have their voice ignored.

Last edited by 5whiskey; September 26, 2017 at 10:49 PM.
5whiskey is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 06:00 AM   #34
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
But I live in a state with good firearm laws and I don't want the feds coming in and trying to level the playing field.
This is my biggest concern. If a national reciprocity proposal gains real momentum, expect Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the rest to do everything in their power to poison it. They will insist on all sorts of exceptions and restrictions. I'd expect to see things like legally-binding "no gun" signs, a ban on carry on any government property, and opt-out clauses for individual cities and/or counties.

What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
Agreed. I expect that even if we get a national carry law passed, the anti-gun crowd will do exactly as Tom suggests. I also expect them to insist on ridiculous training and licensure requirements at the federal level. I can almost hear it now . . . "If the good people of MY state are going to have to residents of other states to carry concealed weapons, then I demand that those residents undergo an 80-hour training course! And an additional 32 hours of range time! To keep my constituents safe, of course."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 10:21 AM   #35
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
I favor national reciprocity but agree the devil is in the details.

I would expect that the states antithetical to carry would respond with draconian local laws banning carry in so many places as to make it useless. Malls, churches, schools, doctors' offices, restaurants that serve alcohol, public libraries - you name it.

Also, laws that forbid leaving a gun in the vehicle.

However, if it could be done and SCOTUS (fantasy world) or Congress would void such state laws - that would be nice. Dream on.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 11:09 AM   #36
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
I would expect that the states antithetical to carry would respond with draconian local laws banning carry in so many places as to make it useless. Malls, churches, schools, doctors' offices, restaurants that serve alcohol, public libraries - you name it.
Isn't that what California does with open carry? Essentially you can exercise your right to bear arms openly but in the middle of nowhere.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 12:07 PM   #37
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
added

CA has a lot of "the middle of nowhere" within its boundaries; other states, not so much.

I could see not only a HUGE list of exemptions, but also a requirement that the gun be unloaded while being carried.

Let this die and stay dead.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 03:59 PM   #38
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I would expect that the states antithetical to carry would respond with draconian local laws banning carry in so many places as to make it useless.
Additionally—to briefly reiterate an argument I made in past national reciprocity threads—I've speculated that anti-gun states could respond by ratcheting up handgun registration requirements to the point that few people from out-of-state will want to comply with them. They could also make this process so slow as to seriously discourage casual travel with a handgun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FITASC
Let this die and stay dead.
I agree.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 07:46 PM   #39
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,106
Quote:
Let this die and stay dead.
haha , yeah until it comes to your state . Everything works from the outside in . As goes CA , goes the country . It's been this way for awhile . Look at CO and even some counties in TX . It's coming to a state near you it's just a matter of time .

Look at Ohio , the state is red but Cincinnati is blue blue blue and just about controls the whole state . Soon I expect Cincinnati will control the state as San Francisco and Las Angeles controls CA ( with San Diego trying to catch up ) . CA is a pretty moderate state outside the big counties/cities .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 11:14 PM   #40
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
Quote:
Everything works from the outside in . As goes CA , goes the country . It's been this way for awhile . Look at CO and even some counties in TX . It's coming to a state near you it's just a matter of time.
If popular support for increased carry restriction is really spreading throughout the country then there's no hope and turning to the feds for help certainly isn't going to solve anything since, if anything, they will be more likely to support those restrictions than alleviate them.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 27, 2017, 11:20 PM   #41
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,106
Quote:
, if anything, they will be more likely to support those restrictions than alleviate them.
Which is my point , we might want to consider getting what we can while we still have a chance at something half way decent . Just saying
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 12:05 AM   #42
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
Well, clearly we can't get anything at all from the feds right now--that's why the bill is dead. IMO, expecting something "halfway decent" when we apparently can't get anything at all doesn't make much sense.

But let's assume that the bill suddenly started moving again and now "halfway decent" is on the table. I don't want something that's "halfway decent". What I have (and what people in most states currently have) is considerably better than "halfway decent". "Halfway decent" might be attractive to the minority of persons who want to carry in the handful states that are on the most restrictive end of the spectrum and a neutral proposition for the states that currently have only "halfway decent" concealed carry laws, but I doubt that the majority of the states would be happy with having their systems degraded to "halfway decent".

And even assuming that we could get something halfway decent from the feds and everyone is ok with only halfway decent, why would there be an expectation that it would stay that way for any reasonable amount of time? There's nothing like stare decisis to discourage Congress from changing its mind and making things more restrictive next year or next term.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 12:58 AM   #43
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,106
The premise I was putting forward and thought you had just agreed to is if the country moves with CA . The country as a whole in 20+ years will be more restrictive then it is now . Like the once great gun state of CO that now has mag restrictions amongst other new anti gun laws . Those types of restrictions will now be in other great free states like AZ or TX ( examples ) as the country becomes more like CA . This will happen because as CA becomes incredible tax heavy . It's residents will relocate bringing there left coast ideologies with them .

So in twenty years and are kids/grand kids are saying these gun laws are just to restrictive we need to pass a reciprocity law . Do you expect are/there side to have more votes or less votes then we have now ?

I'm thinking long game , how do you see the 2nd amendment in 20 years . I can tell you from living in CA for my entire life . 25 years ago the gun culture here was quite different then it is now . We've been giving 2" and taking back 1" year after year and it has dug a hole so deep we are not likely to get out of it with out a huge event from the federal government . If we can't get that now . I fear the country may never be able to stop the decline of the 2nd amendment as the ideologies of the edges close in on the rest of the country .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 01:40 AM   #44
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
I understand what you're saying, I just don't see how it supports pushing for national reciprocity.

Let's say we get it now and things get worse later as you say. Is there some reason to assume that Congress wouldn't simply tighten up the law to match the worsening conditions, thereby leaving things exactly the same as if we passed the law then instead of now?

But more to the point, if I don't want the feds messing with my state's laws at all, why would the prospect of things being worse in 25 years suddenly make me want the fed to mess with my state's law?

I go into a restaurant and the guy says that I MIGHT be able to order the hamburger if things work out just right. I tell him I don't want a hamburger and I'll have a hot dog instead. He tells me that if I don't order the hamburger now, it will be more expensive later and will also be smaller and less fresh. How does that change my situation? It doesn't--in fact, it makes me want the hamburger even less than when I first came in.
Quote:
...25 years ago the gun culture here was quite different then it is now . We've been giving 2" and taking back 1" year after year and it has dug a hole so deep we are not likely to get out of it with out a huge event from the federal government.
I've lived in TX for something like 35 years. Just the reverse is happening here. 25 years ago the handgun carry laws were very restrictive--it was nearly impossible to carry a handgun legally and there was no permit system at all. For the last two decades or so, practically every legislative session has made things better and less restrictive.

I live in fear of a huge event from the federal government.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 06:45 AM   #45
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,275
I don't want the feds to pass a national reciprocity bill. There are too many ways that could go sideways for me, and for gun owners generally. I especially dislike the prospect of licensing requirements being dictated by folks that I can't vote out of office, like the distinguished Congressfolk from Illinois, NY, and CA.

With that said, I wouldn't object to a separate federal CCL, valid in all states, but IMHO, that's got the same chance as the proverbial snowball in hell. I'd much rather see a Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons from the ABA, but given the path they're taking, that's unlikely to happen.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 09:03 AM   #46
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Sadly, as I would like reasonable shall-issue across the country, we will not see it.

I'm convinced by the discussion. Local progress is all that is possible. Restriction of rights will depend on state issues, demographics and moral panics due to some incident.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 09:44 AM   #47
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
Quote:
With that said, I wouldn't object to a separate federal CCL, valid in all states,
And what if the Fed version had more restrictions than your own state? Which would rule?
Just look at public education or any other "one-size-fits-all" social program the Feds have become involved since FDR. All abject financial catastrophes with a huge amount of regulations most don't read or know about. I can see all sorts of back door garbage being tied to this as well.

Just say NO; let your wallet and your vote do your talking.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 10:05 AM   #48
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
A federal shall issue might work unless it was so restrictive.

Theoretically, purists would argue for just being a law abiding citizen with no other requirements.

Or you could have draconian training requirements, mandated insurance, magazine limits, high expense and the like.

So for a thought experiment - let's say each state had its ability for its own local version. States could decide reciprocity (and they do look at training, etc. now). However, the national version would have the requirements of the current TX version. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm

If you aren't a purist - would that be acceptable?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 10:29 AM   #49
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,106
With out even looking at the link I'll speak for the people in CA , NY and the like . We except
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 10:48 AM   #50
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats M
I'd much rather see a Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons from the ABA, but given the path they're taking, that's unlikely to happen.
Spats, that's an excellent laugh line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEM
Sadly, as I would like reasonable shall-issue across the country, we will not see it.
Lots of us would like that result, but the way we get there matters too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEM
A federal shall issue might work unless it was so restrictive.
If you don't mind a tweek to your thought experiment, let's say that Congress decides that armed carry is a matter of interstate commerce and that it will pre-empt state regulation, regulating it to the exclusion of the states.

How long before CA successfully pursues a waiver, the sort of waiver it has for automobile emission regs, from the federal government. Then NY and IL. Now you have Congress regulating carry in Vermont, but NY, CA and IL regulating it in their states.

The people of Vermont and the Dakotas probably have enough influence over their legislators to weather the hysteria that follows the next Terrible Thing. Will Congress resist the urge to do something? Whatever they do is now part of the federal pre-emption that regulates people in Vermont and the Dakotas.

In the current conversation on federal tax reform, the idea of eliminating the deduction for state income taxes has been floated, but the opposition of NY, MA and CA are thought to be so politically costly that no viable bill will contain such a reform. As a political matter, looking at the places with the laws we like least gives us fair warning of the direction in which they would turn federalization.

Another twist on your experiment would be to give the incorporated federal right a more generous reading, maybe a federal due process requirement in order to deny the right. I like that better than congressional pre-emption, but it gets us back to much the same problem -- a congress that represents people with very different ideas about the scope of the right, or even its legitimacy as a right. Would the senate confirm several more federalists?

It's hard to see greater federal control working out for the better.

Last edited by zukiphile; September 28, 2017 at 01:13 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11931 seconds with 8 queries