The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 2, 2017, 01:58 PM   #126
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
A fascinating and informative discussion guys. This is the reason l value this site as highly as I do. We have a complex and ever changing system of government, and as Frank Ettin has informed me more than once, I don't understand everything I think I know about the law.

Balancing State's rights with a Constitutional central government, while limiting the power of both to keep government out of our personal lives is both the blessing and curse of our system. As disfunctional as our Federal government is at this point, I am reluctant to support giving them more control in any area of my life, gun control included.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 04:40 PM   #127
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
Carry laws are currently a matter of state police power. Making carry law within a state a federalized matter for the purpose of allowing it, also makes it a federalized matter for the purpose of prohibiting or licensing it.
This is THE risk. And, its a bigger risk than most people realize. Because our governments (State and Federal) have some traits in common with vampires.

Not only do they feed off our "blood" through various personal taxes, but generally, they cannot enter our homes unless invited (the first time). Once invited, THEN they can enter anytime, to their hearts content, and do whatever they wish once inside.

This particular law may only be "the camel's nose", but we know what the camel does in the story, once his nose is in your tent. And, the story stops short of the full truth. It only tells you how the rest of the camel will enter, and leaves out the fact that once the camel is in your tent, it will crap all over everything you value, AND stay there eternally, eating your food, taking up your space and crapping or spitting all over everything!

"Inviting" the Fed in, over such a trivial matter is a stupidly foolish risk to ALL our rights. Don't think for a moment that National Reciprocity isn't a trivial matter. Because, to the bulk of the country, it is a trivial matter.

Not that our right to self protection is a trivial matter, but the "right" to carry (and carry concealed) any and everywhere we wish to is, to the overwhelming majority of people in the US. Heck, it's even a trivial matter to many of the gunowners on "our" side. I'm one, and I freely admit that.

The people who are pushing for the Fed to force states to recognize their permits and allow carry in a state they don't reside in, are the ones who choose to be affected. Simply put, they choose to go to those states that do not recognize their rights. Their answer to this "problem" is to use the power of the Fed to force those states to do what they want, recognize their "right" to carry as NON-Residents.

I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Despite the fact that most of us would consider a level playing field (when it comes to carry laws) a good thing, it is still tyranny of the masses by the few. For the convenience of the few. People who travel to the restrictive states do so BY CHOICE!

And please, don't give me the argument that you don't have a choice, that your job requires it, or any other BS reason. Unless you are compelled by LAW, it is a choice. The fact that it may not be an easy choice does not matter. It is still your choice.

So, rather than make a difficult personal choice, these people are pushing Fed intervention to force the restrictive state to change it's choice about who can carry, how, where, and when, inside its state borders.

The sad, simple truth is that restrictive states are that way because the people living there WANT THEM TO BE!!! (or they simply don't care about the issue).

Where's the respect for democracy? Yes, democracy can make wrong choices, even bad choices. So, what's the answer??

Demand the use of Federal power (through a law?) to force the states to change what you (not they) feel is a bad decision? Because they are "violating the Constitution"?? (if they ARE violating the supreme law of the land, why would you think they wouldn't do the same with a "lesser", law??)

Maybe a better choice is to take them to court. Of course, there are drawbacks to that method as well. It's expensive. Its slow, and most importantly, you have to have standing. You have to be able to show some way you have been harmed by the law, as it currently exists. Good Luck with that one!

Or you could move to the restrictive state, become a resident, so you can work within that state's legal system to change things.

I think that is the proper, and best way to effect desired change, but I don't see anyone lining up to make that the priority in their lives, so good luck making that happen, as well.

OR, you could just shut up about the whole matter, and live within the system as it exists, flawed and imperfect though it is. If you want to adhere to your principles, make those difficult personal choices so you can. Have nothing to do with restrictive states, in other words, simply don't go there. Or if you do choose to go there, don't go armed.

You HAVE a choice. I think inviting the power of the Fed to settle the matter to your satisfaction (and what ever are you going to do if they settle the matter and its NOT to your personal satisfaction???) which places all the rest of us at risk of having to suffer increased govt intrusion in our lives, is not the right choice to make.

Just my opinion, and possibly worth what you paid for it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 08:08 PM   #128
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
If your response is that congress will just author whatever fiction to allow to do what it wishes, you might be right. Do you want to be the force that destroys that constitutional impediment to federal control?
I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

My example is marijuana. If you take a strict states' rights view, then if marijuana is legal in State A and a resident of State A grows some marijuana on land within State A, and harvests and dries the weed entirely within State A, and then smokes the stuff in the privacy of his house within the borders of State A -- a rational person would say, "This is a state matter, the feds have no jurisdiction."

But the feds claim they do have jurisdiction, because of the interstate commerce clause. And how did they assert "interstate commerce" authority over something that never crossed a state border? In fact, that may never have left our intredpid hero's own property? They claimed that his growing of marijuana "affected" interstate commerce because, if he HADN'T grown his own MJ entirely within State A, he might have otherwise bought marijuana that came from another state. Therefore, by NOT engaging in interstate commerce, he affected interstate commerce.

It's really quite simple. You just have to learn to think like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 08:39 PM   #129
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
But the feds claim they do have jurisdiction, because of the interstate commerce clause. And how did they assert "interstate commerce" authority over something that never crossed a state border? In fact, that may never have left our intredpid hero's own property? They claimed that his growing of marijuana "affected" interstate commerce because, if he HADN'T grown his own MJ entirely within State A, he might have otherwise bought marijuana that came from another state. Therefore, by NOT engaging in interstate commerce, he affected interstate commerce.
Which was the exact argument in Raich... I believe I warned folks about that, way back then.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 09:25 PM   #130
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,080
I have not had a chance to read the bill. The Rep that was on the idiot box this morning stated that the bill would NOT ALLOW CCW in states or cities that have laws against such. EX. NYC, California, Massachusetts, are states and cities the Rep that is sponsoring the bill stated. Seems to me most folks pushing for this are folks living in states where the gun laws are quite restrictive.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 09:49 AM   #131
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don P
The Rep that was on the idiot box this morning stated that the bill would NOT ALLOW CCW in states or cities that have laws against such.
If it doesn't force states (and cities) with laws prohibiting concealed carry to allow the RKBA ... what's the point? I can already carry in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and a few other states if I go there, and for most other states I can get a non-resident permit from somewhere that they'll honor. It's New York, New Jersey, Maryland and California that are the problem.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 01:17 PM   #132
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
NYC does not have a law against concealed carry.
NYC doesn't NEED a law against concealed carry, they already have a law against possession/carry without a NYC permit. And, NY CITY does NOT recognize permits issued by NY STATE!!!

That's right, forget about getting NYC to recognize your out of state permit, NYC doesn't even recognize the permits issued by their own state government!!

Been that way for generations, and both the NYC and the NYS governments are fine with it.

I'm sure it's a bit of an overbroad generalization, but it seems to me that the only people in NY who aren't "fine" with the handgun laws there are people that own a pistol, or want to....

I grew up in New York State. Got a pistol permit there in 1975, at age 18! (yes, 18, not 21) 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport type) 3 character references, investigation by about every law enforcement agency NY had, and THEN, it was entirely up to the issuing judge to issue or not.

The (state) permit said right on it, "Not valid in NYC".
and, that permit was valid to possess (and open carry only) ONLY those pistols listed on the permit, by make, caliber, barrel length, and serial number!

If you think the people running NYC and NYS today are more reasonable and open minded about gun rights today than they were 40+ years ago, you might be a prime candidate to buy a bridge, in Brooklyn...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 04:46 PM   #133
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,395
Well, I was for national reciprocity before I was against it. I just read where Senators Feinstein and Schumer are trying to or have tacked that fix NCIS bill to the reciprocity bill and that some Democrat in the House is planning on doing the same. Note that the MSM isn't saying anything about that other than IIRC, FOX News. Methinks this bodes ill gentlemen.
Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 05:14 PM   #134
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
If all they want to do is "fix" NICS, not drastically expand it to require universal background checks, I don't think many of us have a problem with that. I do happen to think that NICS, 4473s, and the entire carry permit/license scheme are massive violations of the 2A, but that's what we have. As long as we have NICS, it might as well function properly.

So if we can get national reciprocity (with teeth!) in exchange for allowing them to fix NICS, I can abide by that. I think both parties want to fix NICS anyway, after that Texas church massacre, so by all means let's use that as a bargaining chip for reciprocity.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 05:27 PM   #135
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
I grew up in NYC, have lived in many other states. Just say NO to national reciprocity or ANY other involvement by the Federal Gov't. It is NOT worth having that camel share your tent. The regs will be set by NJ, NY, CA, etc and NOT by AZ, WY or VT. There is NO compromise with the antis; they only want to completely destroy us. "Death by 1000 cuts" comes to mind.
__________________
"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 December 3, 2017, 05:30 PM   #136
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,634
I see a lot about what might happen to national reciprocity or could happen. it seems most people here are not opposed to what is in the bill today. I'll go with what it says now and worry about what happens to it later, later. It certainly would be nice for me in it's present form as I live in PA right up against the NY border.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is online now  
Old December 3, 2017, 07:06 PM   #137
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 395
A thought came to me after reading the posts about letting the camels nose in under the tent.....what would prevent the federal government from currently doing the opposite, forbidding reciprocity between states under the interstate commerce clause?
heyjoe is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 11:19 PM   #138
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
what would prevent the federal government from currently doing the opposite, forbidding reciprocity between states under the interstate commerce clause?
To name a few, and in no particular order,

public sentiment

The fact that it would be a huge issue in their re-election bids

The fact that is it not an indisputable fact that they have the legal authority to do so...

Remember it takes the same authority to demand "you will" as it does to command "thou shalt not". And that authority is not a settled issue at this time.

If it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor would we need a new law. If that authority existed, then national reciprocity, or its opposite could be done with a simple Presidential fiat.

since that is not the case at this time, I'd think that would stop the govt from doing what you suggest.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 3, 2017, 11:43 PM   #139
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,266
And just because Congress might be found to constitutionally have the power to do something doesn't mean that the thing is politically feasible.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 09:36 AM   #140
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,428
Rumor is reciprocity will be combined with the Schumer-Pelosi “Fix NICS” bill and authorize a study of bump stocks by Congress.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 10:04 AM   #141
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,080
As I have stated many time before the federal government involved with this law will turn it to a total disaster and already the wonderful reps are piling on the riders and the last thing we as gun owners need is to find out what was in the bill after it passes and becomes law. REMEMBER "WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT" as the now minority house leader stated about OBAMA CARE

Quote:
NYC doesn't NEED a law against concealed carry, they already have a law against possession/carry without a NYC permit. And, NY CITY does NOT recognize permits issued by NY STATE!!!
I believe the Sullivan Law went into effect somewhere around the early 1900's because of all the gang wars at the time
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 01:28 PM   #142
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don P
As I have stated many time before the federal government involved with this law will turn it to a total disaster and already the wonderful reps are piling on the riders and the last thing we as gun owners need is to find out what was in the bill after it passes and becomes law. REMEMBER "WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT" as the now minority house leader stated about OBAMA CARE
That's a concern, but that has always been a concern, with any bill. It's our own fault, for having allowed the Congress to continually attach unrelated amendments to bills. Sometimes they are intended to sneak through things that otherwise wouldn't pass, sometimes they are "poison pill" amendments that are offered for the sole intent of killing the original bill.

Anything that deserves to be a law deserves to be discussed and voted on in its own ride, not hidden in an amendment to an unrelated bill. That goes far beyond the national reciprocity bill, and we should ALL be raising a constant stink about the parctice with our elected "representatives."

Remember, "You get the government you deserve." If we're not pushing them to fix the way they do business, it can be argued that we deserve the result.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 04:46 PM   #143
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
I believe the Sullivan Law went into effect somewhere around the early 1900's because of all the gang wars at the time
That's what they claimed, at the time...

And the NFA was passed to "stop the gangsters and bootleggers with machine guns", conveniently ignoring the fact that the law was passed in 1934, several years AFTER the repeal of Prohibition (which took the majority of the money out of bootlegging and mobsters hands).

And the GCA 68 was to stop cheap mail order guns used to assassinate Presidents and candidates...

And what was the 94 AWB supposed to stop?... mass shootings? or people enjoying themselves with semi auto military look alike firearms?

(I know which one I'd pick...)

Quote:
"WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT"
In my opinion, if there was ever a statement that should disqualify someone from serving in legislative office (at any level) this is it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 06:19 PM   #144
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Quote:
"WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT"
In my opinion, if there was ever a statement that should disqualify someone from serving in legislative office (at any level) this is it.
Absolutely. That right there is prima facie evidence of dereliction of duty.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 07:48 PM   #145
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
Except that those famous words are only a partial quote of what she actually said, and you aren't even quoting her correctly to begin with. Context is very important, but I've learned that it matters little on the internet. I'm no big fan of NP, but she wasn't saying what the internet echo chamber says she was. The quote isn't even correct.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 07:52 PM   #146
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,432
Quote:
I'm no big fan of NP, but she wasn't saying what the internet echo chamber says she was. The quote isn't even correct.
What is the quote??
Sharkbite is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 09:30 PM   #147
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
I'm amazed that after all the federal gun laws we already have, starting with the 1934 NFA, there's people who think somehow that passing a reciprocity bill allows the feds to do what they've already been doing for 83 years. The way I see it is if you stop the feds from expanding gun rights the only direction the federal laws can go is ever more restrictive.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 4, 2017, 10:03 PM   #148
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
And just WHO do you think the Feds will listen to when it comes to "expanding our rights"?
Will they listen to the folks who live where carry everywhere by any means is allowed and force the NY, CA, NJ et all to allow that? Or do you think they just might listen to those anti folks and allow reciprocity with so many restrictions, you might as well live in NYC?

If it sounds to good to be true (especially coming from the mouth of a politician), is most certainly IS........
__________________
"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 December 4, 2017, 10:43 PM   #149
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
@FITASC - what restrictions in the current bill concern you?

If it doesn't pass what prevents Congress from passing restrictions in the future? What stops them, for example, from prohibiting carry in a religious institution? Any place that sells alcohol? Magazine capacity restrictions?

They can do any and all those things without national reciprocity. And whatever else they have the votes to pass and a President willing to sign.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 08:33 AM   #150
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
If all they want to do is "fix" NICS, not drastically expand it to require universal background checks, I don't think many of us have a problem with that. I do happen to think that NICS, 4473s, and the entire carry permit/license scheme are massive violations of the 2A, but that's what we have. As long as we have NICS, it might as well function properly.

So if we can get national reciprocity (with teeth!) in exchange for allowing them to fix NICS, I can abide by that. I think both parties want to fix NICS anyway, after that Texas church massacre, so by all means let's use that as a bargaining chip for reciprocity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyl4...Q#action=share

https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMa...43059172384905

Anybody have any more info on this besides Massey?

Last edited by steve4102; December 5, 2017 at 08:38 AM.
steve4102 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 12:20 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 0.14865 seconds with 8 queries