|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 23, 2017, 09:00 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
September 23, 2017, 09:17 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Thanks Frank , I did not know states recognizing other states drivers lic was not mandated by the Federal government .
Quote:
__________________
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 . |
|
September 23, 2017, 09:28 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
September 24, 2017, 09:52 AM | #29 |
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. |
September 24, 2017, 08:43 PM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
September 24, 2017, 09:51 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
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 . |
September 25, 2017, 10:08 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
September 26, 2017, 10:42 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
Quote:
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. |
|
September 27, 2017, 06:00 AM | #34 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
September 27, 2017, 10:21 AM | #35 |
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 |
September 27, 2017, 11:09 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
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.
|
September 27, 2017, 12:07 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
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 |
September 27, 2017, 03:59 PM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
September 27, 2017, 07:46 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
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 . |
|
September 27, 2017, 11:14 PM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
September 27, 2017, 11:20 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
__________________
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 . |
|
September 28, 2017, 12:05 AM | #42 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
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?
|
September 28, 2017, 12:58 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
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 . |
September 28, 2017, 01:40 AM | #44 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
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:
I live in fear of a huge event from the federal government.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
September 28, 2017, 06:45 AM | #45 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
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. |
September 28, 2017, 09:03 AM | #46 |
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 |
September 28, 2017, 09:44 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
Quote:
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 |
|
September 28, 2017, 10:05 AM | #48 |
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 |
September 28, 2017, 10:29 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
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 . |
September 28, 2017, 10:48 AM | #50 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; September 28, 2017 at 01:13 PM. |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|