[Caimlas]

Remember that whacky Nebraskan gun grabber politician, Senator Ben Nelson? The one who has been fighting CCWs in Nebraska for ages now?

Nelson proposes national concealed carry standard

By Stacia Harris

As Nebraska tries to work out its gun laws, Senator Ben Nelson is trying to ensure your concealed weapon permit is good in all other states. Nelson is calling for a national standard for the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Nelson is one of the sponsors of a bill requiring states to recognize each others concealed weapons permits the same way driver's licenses are recognized.

Under the bill, the laws of each state restricting where concealed firearms can be carried would still apply.

According to the National Rifle Association, 48 states have laws allowing some form of concealed carry.

So, let me get this straight: the same restrictions apply as currently, but now the federal government gets to stick its regulatory nose into things? Kind of like how they've done with driver's licenses, schools, and various other institutions - by forcing compliance through the disincentive of highway funding removal?

[Standing Wolf]

Trusting the federal government with our civil rights is like asking the coyotes to guard the hen house: you'd have to stay up very late to think up a worse idea.

[3rdpig]

Personally, I'd rather it be left in the hands of the states. Between my states CCW and easily available non resident permits, I can carry concealed in almost every state that I'd want to visit. I trust the Feds to do NOTHING right or in my interest.

[nate392]

3rdpig I def agree the feds can't do much in our interests, especially this Congress, so it's suprising a bill like this has been introduced. It's great your state offers reciprocity with so many other states, but I feel this bill will greatly effect those of us who don't live in states who acknowledge other states as much. I kinda hope this one passes.

[CDignition]

Last I checked, my DL said State of Florida on it... I Don't see how this is relevant??

[Stretchman]

Probably has something to do with the fact taht people are traveling between the states with weapons on them or in their possesion. That might explain why the Feds are beginning to take an interest. They are the ones who regulate interstate transport.

There may be things at play we know nothing of, but for the most part, a federal standard would be good. It may also mean eventually that we end up with more gun rights instead of less. Could be some corrollary between states that issue and the drop in the incidence of violent crimes. But I am guessing there. May also have something to do with commercial transport being able to carry as well.

Accordiong to Texas stats, people with weapons permits are far less likely to commit any type of crime. Course, I live in Florida. Hard to say for here. But if the stats are translatable, then maybe the Govt. actually feels more secure that people are in fact carrying.

Why would people think that the Govt. is automatically paranoid about us being armed? It is constitutionally provided for, and in these trying times, I am pretty certain that they are liking the fact that so many people are willing to step up, and do it right. That includes the training and the discipline to do it the way it is supposed to be done. Last thing anyone wants is a bunch of loonies running around with firearms making trouble, or playing super cop. Including most of the people who have reservations about carry in general. But well armed and disciplined people who carry may make it safer for everyone, while keeping the BGs guessing about who is and who ain't.

IMO, overall, this could be a good thing, done right.

Stretch
Quit cigs 1M 2D 19h 9m ago. So far saved $202.78, 1,351 cigs not smoked and counting ...

[xd45gaper]

or they are working another angle for a national ID :barf:

[cpileri]

I can't help but think that it simply created a nice, centralized and comprehensive list of the Americans most likely to be armed, and therefore to use their arms, at any given itme.
If even just for 'monitoring' purposes, i can see why the feds would want that list- and if the feds want it, its not likely to be something good for me.

Can't help but be pessimistic about this seemingly good thing.
Sorry to be a downer,
C-

[Robert Hairless]

Let's be careful about the knee jerk reactions. That brief article does not say what specific bill that Senator favors.

Whatever it is, we all need to urge our Senators to support S.388, which is the recently-introduced Senate version of a national concealed carry reciprocity bill introduced in the House of Representatives. The House bill is H.R.226, and we need to urge our Congressmen to support it. These are good bills that would make a good, rational law requiring states to recognize each others' carry permits. States that do not issue permits would be required to recognize the valid permits of states that do issue permits. These bills do not create a national permit: they make it easier for people with state permits to travel throughout their own country without being criminalized as if they were entering foreign countries with different laws.

Here is the NRA/ILA statement on H.R.226:

H.R. 226, introduced by U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

I don't know what chance either bill has, but I am sure that it has little chance unless a great many gun owners urge their representatives to support it. And I think it has no chance at all if gun owners refuse to recognize the reality that there is a United States of America and that its Congress will pass laws affecting them.

[Autolycus]

As an Illinois resident this maybe my only hope for CCW. I suspect that this may apply to Wisconsinites, New Yorkers, and some Californians. I am sure a few other places as well such as Maryland and DC. It would be nice to see the federales force the states to recognize the right to carry a gun but I think the proper way to do it would be to grant national carry in the vein of Vermont and Alaska. Basically no permit required.

If it was like that rather than some sort of ID card would you all support it?

Just my $0.02

[GRIZ22]

Quote:

I think the proper way to do it would be to grant national carry in the vein of Vermont and Alaska. Basically no permit required.

This would be infringing on a state's rights issue. I would go along with no permit required if every felon caught in possession of a firearm gets his or her 5 years as current law states. As stated this is not a national carry permit. You have to have a state CCW permit to start with under this law. States can apply their carry laws to your permit for example no hollowpoints in NJ. About 80% of the states are right to carry states and this federal law would be a push for all states to be right to carry.

The federal regulation of a standard really doesn't bother me depending on how restrictive it is. In many states a lunatic who's never been diagnosed or doesn't have criminal record can go buy a gun amd get a CCW without any sort of knowledge about guns, shooting, or the laws involved in self defense. That bothers me. I know many say "he's got the right" but this doesn't help our argument to the middle of the road RKBA people and gives the anti-gunners " ammunition.

Joe and I hit most of the cans we shoot at the dump is not a display of marksmanship. When I read of someone buying a 480 Ruger for a CCW piece (unless of course you live in Alaska or somewhere you can easily encounter dangerous wildlife) it makes me wonder what they think they'll encounter.

The issue of a national id card is mentioned often. You already have your Social Sevurity Number which in effect has been your national id number. Think of all the things tied to your SSN

[Robert Hairless]

..

[Robert Hairless]

GRIZ22:

In many states a lunatic who's never been diagnosed or has a criminal record can go buy a gun amd get a CCW without any sort of knowledge about guns, shooting, or the laws involved in self defense.

How do you square that part of what you said with your claim to support states' rights? If you do support the right of each state to make its own laws, you shouldn't object to their doing so.

Do you know some way to determine who is a "lunatic" if he hasn't been diagnosed as such? Anyone could be an undiagnosed lunatic. Do you want guns banned entirely so as to avoid the possibility that some hidden lunatic doesn't get one?

It's simply not true that anyone with a criminal record can get a CCW. I don't know of any state that issues concealed weapons permits without requiring an FBI check for an applicant's criminal record. Do you know of any state that doesn't require it?

It's also not true that anyone can go buy a gun, at least not through an FFL and another FBI check. Federal law already prohibits felons, people with even misdemeanor charges of domestic violence, dishonorably discharged military, and others from buying guns. So do most state laws, as far as I know. If such people do in fact acquire guns illegally, more laws and harsher laws can't possibly deter them: they break existing laws, so why should they abide by additional laws? The only possible way to prevent them from obtaining guns illegally is for the federal and state governments to ban all guns, confiscate those in existence, and make sure that no one has a gun. Would that satisfy you?

There is also what anti-gun forces call "the gunshow loophole," which they are attempting to correct by ensuring that all gun transactions made at gun shows between private parties will be recorded and checked. The obvious next step would be to disallow all private gun sales and all private gun transfers without registering the guns and checking the buyer. Would that make you happier?

I'm curious about your position that felons caught with a firearm should be sentenced to prison for five years. Under current law, anyone convicted of a felony is barred from owning, using, or even holding a gun forever. Most of us would prefer that people who commit felonies and receive a fair sentence become good, law-abiding members of society. Is there some reason why you believe that someone who was convicted of a felony, served his time, and reformed has a life that is less valuable than other people's lives? If such a person's life is as valuable as yours or mine, how do you justify denying him the same means to defend his life that you claim to need for defending yours? I don't know how justify saying that the lives of some law abiding people have more value than that of others.

I'm not much impressed by people who want to impose perpetual punishment for every crime. I'd rather have no criminals at all, but I'd prefer former criminals to active criminals every time. Don't you?

[GRIZ22]

Quote:

How do you square that part of what you said with your claim to support states' rights? If you do support the right of each state to make its own laws, you shouldn't object to their doing so.

If your state doesn't have anything like a CCW class that's your states decision. I don't have to like your state laws and you don't have to like mine. Any objection to any states laws is my opinion however I will abide by the laws of a state I'm in. I can't see how you would construe this to mean I don't believe in states rights.

If a national standard is adopted and your states CCW requirements don't meet it, just don't meet the federal standard and don't carry your gun in states there is no reciprocity.

Quote:

Do you know some way to determine who is a "lunatic" if he hasn't been diagnosed as such? Anyone could be an undiagnosed lunatic. Do you want guns banned entirely so as to avoid the possibility that some hidden lunatic doesn't get one?

You are really reading into this one. Where did I say I want guns banned? There are mentally ill people who haven't been diagnosed as such everywhere. As such they could legally buy a gun as long as they met the other requirements.

Quote:

It's simply not true that anyone with a criminal record can get a CCW. I don't know of any state that issues concealed weapons permits without requiring an FBI check for an applicant's criminal record. Do you know of any state that doesn't require it?


Poor wording on my part I corrected it to say what I intended "have no criminal record".

Quote:

It's also not true that anyone can go buy a gun, at least not through an FFL and another check. Federal law prohibits felons, people with even misdemeanor charges of domestic violence, dishonorably discharged military, and others from buying guns.

I figured that everyone here knew that and I picked on the mentally ill disqualification. To be more complete we should add illegal aliens and persons advocating violent overthrow of the goverment .

Quote:

If such people do in fact acquire guns illegally, more laws and harsher laws can't possibly deter them: they break existing laws, so why should they abide by additional laws?

I said:

I would go along with no permit required if every felon caught in possession of a firearm gets his or her 5 years as current law states.

I'm not asking for more laws just using the ones already on the books.

Quote:

I'm curious about your position that felons caught with a firearm should be sentenced to prison.

That is not only my position but it is the law although not used often. I believe that some (more than 50%, less than 50% I'm not ssure) that should have their firearms rights restored after showing they are reformed and have become productive members of society. The mechanism for this exists and is used more often than many realize. The first step in ATFE granting a relief from disabilty, in the case of a state crime, is a pardon or expungement from the state. There we go with those states rights again!

Quote:

I'm not much impressed by people who want to impose perpetual punishment for every crime.

As I stated above I have no problem with gun rights being restored. I don't think we should hand them out as felons leave prison. It's a case of you were punished and now show us you've reformed first. There are of course certain crimes where the felon should never have gun rights restored.

Quote:

Would that satisfy you? Would that make you happier?


You seem to have this fixation I somewhere said all guns should be banned.

Read my post again I never said that.

[Autolycus]

Well Griz22 why not just recognize the 2nd Amendment for what it meant? The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms without any infringement. A permit whether state or federal or local is an infringement because if I dont have it I am not able to bear arms. That is the problem.

The permit is an infringement on our rights but at least with a federal permit we will be able to have national reciprocity. So we might gain something positive for the pro-gunners. Is this not better than some unconstitutional amendment that takes more of our rights away?

So in this case we are getting something positive at least. Lets just go with that and indulge ourselves.

[gezzer]

Nothing like reregistering Gun owners with this type of bill.

A permit is a permit no matter HOW issued same as a DL. That way or forget it.

[Robert Hairless]

GRIZ22, I know you never said that you want all guns banned and that you support states rights and several other things.

What I tried to do in my response to your message was to suggest that you perhaps weren't thinking clearly or logically. You were talking about "undiagnosed lunatics." That is absurd. I tried to point out, gently, that there is no such thing as an "undiagnosed lunatic" because there is no way to know who is mentally ill unless and until that person is diagnosed as mentally ill. The only way to prevent anyone who hasn't been diagnosed as mentally ill from owning a gun is to prevent everyone from owning one.

You still don't get it though, because you now say "There are mentally ill people who haven't been diagnosed as such everywhere." I doubt if they're everywhere (although I do have suspicions about some people on the Internet) but how can you deny them gun ownership if you don't know who they are--unless you deny gun ownership to everyone. Real question: Do you have a psychiatrist's certificate attesting to your own sanity at this moment? If not, should you be denied the right to own a gun because you might be what you called an "undiagnosed lunatic" or a "mentally ill person who hasn't been diagnosed as such"?

Yes, I do know current law with respect to firearms and felons. I'm sure I know it because I told it to you. My question was about how you could value the lives of truly reformed criminals less than your own life. Your response was this:

I believe that some (more than 50%, less than 50% I'm not ssure) that should have their firearms rights restored after showing they are reformed and have become productive members of society. The mechanism for this exists and is used more often than many realize. The first step in ATFE granting a relief from disabilty, in the case of a state crime, is a pardon or expungement from the state. There we go with those states rights again!

I am truly interested in your implication that the BATFE has granted relief to convicted felons "more often than many realize." How many convicted felons have had their right to own a gun restored by the BATFE? My understanding is that--at least during the past fifteen years--there have been approximately none and exactly none. Congress prohibited the BATFE from processing all requests at least fifteen years ago, and so far as I know that prohibition still exists. I would like to be corrected with real information if you have any.

I very much like your "There we go with those states rights again!" but since the BATFE would make the decision, and the BATFE is federal, I can't join you in the mental slide you make from a federal agency to states rights.

That muddle of quotes and responses that you posted is beyond me. In some places you say you're wrong, then use different words to say the same thing. The thinking is so tangled that I just don't want to get drawn further into it.

[GRIZ22]

Hairless,

The muddled quotes are yours. I say in my response that an undiagnosed mentally ill person meeting other requirements can buy a gun. There is no requirement for a mental evaluation certificate. I guess you just want to disagree. I can live with my muddled responses and tangled thinking.

Tecumseh,

I know what the 2A says but we have to live in this world of permits. Read my post again and you'll see I'm for this even if there has to be some federal standard.

[Gray Peterson]

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

This law is the FOPA interstate protection. This is what keeps you from getting convicted of a violation of NYS law if you have a unloaded handgun in your trunk and traversing through New York State.

Let's take a look at this provision:
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

Both of them have notwithstanding clauses. The point of a notwithstanding clause is to allow you to do something that is within the purview of the higher law in a specific manner without fearing local prosecution.

If you carry outside of that protection, you lose that protection entirely and could be subject to state law violations.

It's shocking to me how many people haven't A) Read the actual bill. B) Don't understand what the term "notwithstanding" means. I had a packing.org member state that "this bill would allow a judge to declare open carry illegal nationwide". Unbelievable and a leap, yet this is the level of fear and loathing this bill has caused, for absolutely no reason, other than tinfoil hat paranoia that this bill will "Allow the government to regulate concealed carry and ban it".

I posted this over at Packing.org:

Ok, trailboss, have you even read the bill?

The "restrictions" put in it are not "restrictions" per se. The bill is a "notwithstanding state laws" bill, similar to FOPA. With FOPA, you are protected from being convicted of a crime in New York by transporting your firearm across that state, despite it being illegal to possess said firearms without registration (which is not offered to non-NY residents)

The Stearn-Boucher/Thune bill would extend this "notwithstanding state laws" further in scope to cover concealed carry of firearms if you have a license from any state.

The current situation with state reciprocity agreements will still continue to exist, and in fact will continue to be necessary since there are several "licensed general carry" states that illegalize open or concealed carry unless you have a license. That is my only issue or problem with this bill.

For example, my CPL from Washington is not considered valid in Minnesota for anything. Let's assume for a minute that this is the only license I have, and this bill passes. I would be able to carry concealed in that state, but not openly or I could get charged with a violation of Minnesota's pistol carry law, because I lose the reciprocity protection by openly carrying a handgun in a holster on my hip. In order to do so, I have to either A) Apply for and get a non-resident Minnesota license so I can carry openly or B) Get a license from a state that they have a reciprocity agreement with, such as the state of Utah (I still need to get that one), so that I can carry openly.

As far as the prohibited places in the "states that don't issue licenses" portion, or even the state license prohibited places, federally nothing can happen to you. There is no violation of FEDERAL law here, you merely lose that "notwithstanding" protection from the state laws.

Any arguments against this bill saying that it's "unconstitutional" and all this other crap, should also start demanding the repeal of interstate FOPA protections. They are passed for the same reasons, does the same thing, so I don't see any of you, especially you, Trailboss, calling for the FOPA interstate protection's repeal. Please, allow New York to arrest people just tranversing their state with a handgun in their trunk, just like they did before 1986.

Every argument I've seen is bordering on tinfoil hat paranoia, that this bill will give some sort of "opening" or "camels nose under the tent" to further bans on concealed carry nationwide or "fedgov setting the standards". Considering that they already ban carry in Federal Courthouses, National Parks Service Land, and other various places, you certainly can see that they don't view any bills like this to say "well, now we can REALLY turn up the heat and get everything we want! Mwua ha ha".

One more argument to throw out here:

"Well if this bill passes, New York, California, and New Jersey will just ban carry on all public property, and then pop out of state residents that way"

Any such ban will have to affect in state residents as well as out of state residents just as much. I don't see lucky folk who managed to score a full license in NYC, NJ, or urban California, considering how much in campaign contributions and networking they had to do to be able to get their license, to all of the sudden allow their license to be completely worthless. They will fight for their licenses, and state legislators will face a choice: continue doing what they're doing and have the power brokers try to boot them out something fierce, or sit down and shut up.

In fact, I see this bill as a way to dislodge the "tough nut to crack" states on CCW, especially with the language as currently written where it doesn't seem to have a home state requirement.

Illinois, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, if this bill passes, will have a tough choice to make. If they refuse to go shall-issue, they will have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, applying for carry licenses out of state. If they want control over the situation to where they can figure out who is carrying, they have to pass shall-issue or lose money and information to the states that are willing to market their non-resident licenses, namely Florida and Utah.

If the people who keep bashing this bill could actually read and understand the wording of the bill, the history of both the bill AND the FOPA interstate protection, maybe they'd do an about face.

Nah, it's easier to throw water on a good idea and use a flamethrower on the conversation.

[NukemJim]

A question please at the risk of thead drift.

FOPA is being used as an example of allowing people to carry through NY. I seem to remember some threads indicating that FOPA althogh technicly the law is not being recognized as such.

I must emphasize I have no first hand knowledge of this and that the few cases that I have heard about on this board may be the anomolies.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=240675&highlight=york+city+arrested+airport

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=99266&highlight=york+city+arrested+airport


NukemJim

[Outlaw Man]

I think the states have been doing a fairly good job of it themselves. Arkansas needs to get off its high horse so I don't have to get a Utah permit to go into the deep south, but I'll settle for what Utah's permit will add. It sounds like a good deal, but it's really not the federal government's place to say. They were not given any authority to make laws concerning the carrying of firearms (aside from militia training).

There aren't any of the "slave" states that I can't live without going to.

[Liberal Gun Nut]

This national reciprocity bill does NOT create a national CCW. It does not let the feds regulate anything they don't already regulate.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This national reciprocity bill does NOT create a national CCW. It does not let the feds regulate anything they don't already regulate.

It WOULD be de facto recognition by Congress that the Second Amendment can be ignored by the states that have law prohibiting the carry of guns to begin with.

And stop calling it "regulate". What they are doing is "governing" the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - in defiance of the Second Amendment. "Regulating" would consist of arming and training the people in the efficient use of arms. Regulating, really, has nothing to do with "keep" and/or "bear".

Woody

The underlying problem concerning the law that "allows" or "requires" us to get a permit is law that makes carrying a gun "unlawful" to begin with. It starts there, then laws are passed that create exceptions to the original law, to allow carry under certain conditions after you jump through a few hoops and pay a fee. It is that original law that is unconstitutional. Eliminate that original law, then there is no opportunity to require permits. B.E.Wood

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The amount of unfounded paranoia over this bill is astounding...

Really? I find the paranoia routed in truth and underwhelmingly stated. It should be shouted from the rooftops.

This is Congress infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and would be Congress blessing all the infringement by the several states as well.

There is no other way to look at this. Removal of the infringing law is the only constitutional way to address and resolve this issue.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

[romma]

And stop calling it "regulate". What they are doing is "governing" the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - in defiance of the Second Amendment. Well then, if we use this logic, "they" are already governing the RTKBA, at least this way, they are moving in the right direction by forcing at least some states to recognize it...

[Robert Hairless]

Lonnie Wilson and LGN:

You're right. These two bills are entirely to the benefit of people with concealed weapons permits in any state. It's hard to understand why anyone with a CWP would not support these bills and work for their passage.

They allow CWP holders to travel freely in their own country without becoming criminals if they cross into a state that does not issue permits to non residents or even to their own residents. A tourist with a CWP who wants to see his own nation's capitol is immediately criminalized when he drives into Washingon, D.C.--which is among the most dangerous cities in this country. These bills allow him and her the chance to protect their lives and their family's lives.

The bills do not create a national concealed carry permit and they do not create a new slippery slope by which aliens who want to put fluorides in the water and abduct our womenfolk can create a national concealed carry permit.

These bills simply require all states to recognize other states' concealed weapons permits just as they recognize other states' drivers licenses. CWP holders from other states would still have to obey the laws in every state they visit.

When a federal law benefits all of the nation's citizens, it's more than a little crazy to make a "states rights" argument against it. That kind of objection would return this country to the golden age of slavery, revoke the right of women to vote, allow states to reinstitute child labor and permit foods to be adulterated, and probably turn many of this forum's members into homeless paupers.

I frankly enjoy reading arguments that any federal legislation--even if it benefits gun owners--is an infringement upon the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution as worded by the federal convention that passed this federal contract. I don't think I would be one of the people who enjoyed watching the antics of lunatics when tourists treated insane asylums as places for entertainment, but I can't be sure and I recognize that there is fun in watching people bounce off the walls.

Bottom line. If you encounter some law that you believe violates your Second Amendment rights and if you think it violates your Second Amendment rights to benefit from any law that protects you, do what you believe is right and don't hide it. So if you truly think that it is an infringement of your Second Amendment rights to have a federal law requiring all states to recognize your CWP, don't take advantage of it if you are wrongly arrested for carrying without a permit. Be a man. Go to court, argue that your permit should not have been recognized, but that you are protected by the Second Amendment. My understanding is that many states provide nice places to live, good food, and lovely drugs for people who think that way. While you're inside, be sure to argue that you have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the funny farm. The doctors and attendants work hard and deserve a good laugh too.

There is no downside to these bills for rational people. Or even for irrational people. Not even if they are "undiagnosed lunatics."

Outlaw Man:

The basis of your objection to such a law is that it doesn't help you any. That's the way a great many other selfish gun owners think too: they're not interested in anything that doesn't benefit them personally. Sarah Brady loves you. You help her do the work she's doing.

[pacodelahoya]

I thought there was already federal regulations on carrying a firearm?

It goes somthing like..."shall not be infringed."

Goes to show how much I know right?:evil:

[Robert Hairless]

pacodelahoya:

I thought there was already federal regulations on carrying a firearm?

It goes somthing like..."shall not be infringed."

Goes to show how much I know right?

Good for you. You're on top of things. So don't acknowledge the existence of any federal laws that you believe violate your rights. Tell your friends too. Don't do anything that violates your own principles either. If a federal law grants you rights that you think violates the Constitution or your principles, don't accept the benefits of those laws. Show them the kind of stuff you're made of!
:)

[alan]

Strikes me that there is a very large difference between National Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses and RECIPROCITY amongst the several states. If one looks with any degree of care, it becomes obvious that it is the latter circumastance that is sought.

Each of the states issues Drivers Licenses, and last time I noticed, The Pennsylvania Drivers License I currently possess is recognized, without question, throughout the rest of the nation. Any possible reason for the situation being different with Concealed Carry Licenses or Permits escapes me, for nowhere, so far as I understand are such licenses issued to felons or other "proscribed persons".

[romma]

So don't acknowledge the existence of any federal laws that you believe violate your rights. So you would be okay to open carry a handgun or an AR-15 rifle down 5th Ave New York,NY with this line of thinking? Are you willing to go that far to prove your rights are violated? Do you have a concealed permit for any state now?

[Outlaw Man]

I love what this law is trying to do. I think it would be a great thing as I would love to visit places like New York, California, and D.C. This doesn't negate the fact that the government is abusing its power. If they can pass a law like this they can also pass a law restricting reciprocity for all states.

You can't have it one way - either the federal government isn't allowed to make legislation on concealed carry or they can make any legislation concerning CCWs. This business of letting them make "good" laws outside their Constitutional power is most of what got us where our gun rights/privalegs are today.

I wish we could have national reciprocity, but the only legal way to do it is with a Constitutional amendment.

I never expected many people to be fond of my strict constructionist views.



The "state's rights" argument is moot - slavery, women's sufferage, etc. were accomplished by Constitutional amendments.

[pacodelahoya]

Mr. Hairless,

I have no choice but to aknowledge federal laws.

Nope, won't violate my principals.

Now federal law grants rights ?

I already have the rights without the laws.

(never did I say it wasn't a good idea, just trying to point out the absurdity of making laws that are already covered by our basic rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I understand the whole incremental thing, sheesh.)

:)

[bruss01]

I think that nationwide reciprocity would be a good thing.

It would allow a lot of people in restrictive states a chance to get permits, even if they had to obtain those permits from another state.

This practice would lead the remaining "may issue" states to rethink their stance, given that a resident could obtain a Utah or Florida permit and carry anyway, why not do it local and pocket the fees?

States that currently have "lax" CCW requirements could offer 2 classes of permit. A "native only" permit that is honored within the state of residence, and a "nationwide" permit that one would have to take a class or do other things to meet the minimum nationwide criteria. Folks who live in the middle of the state and rarely if ever need to carry in another state could enjoy the ease and convenience of a native permit, while those who frequently cross state lines could pony up the extra effort to qualify for the nationwide permit.

If you think the Feds don't already have a list of gun owners, or at least a VERY VERY good start on one, you're kidding yourself. Between NICS checks, credit card sweeps, and 100's of other arguably illegal sources, they have access to all the data they want. All it takes is a "national security letter" or even as little as a badge flash and an intimidating expression and most businesses and organizations will simply roll over, with the assurances that the data will only be held for a short time, or only certain portions of it relevant to the case will be used. Hogwash. They have all the data they could ever want and it is next to effortless to get more if they so desire.

Do you wonder about hackers who get caught where they ought not to be, what they end up doing? Nobody wins if they rot in jail, I bet the feds hire them as independent contractors who can work off part of their sentence as a court agreed "plea bargain". The data gets slipped under someone's door, late at night so they can cite a tip from an anonymous source. <adjusts tinfoil hat>

[DoubleTapDrew]

You can't have it one way - either the federal government isn't allowed to make legislation on concealed carry or they can make any legislation concerning CCWs. This business of letting them make "good" laws outside their Constitutional power is most of what got us where our gun rights/privalegs are today.

But if the law simply forced states to recognize CCWs of other states as they do with drivers licenses and they decided to "restrict reciprocity" we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now would we? I've never heard of the federal government taking away someone's state-issued drivers license (although the state can, like they can with a CCW license).
I'm frustrated by the fact I can't go into the state to my north or to my south with my CCW.

[Outlaw Man]

We would be worse off if they restricted it everywhere. There are nearly 20 states I can carry in with only my local license. 20 is much better than none.

I don't want my gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) federal government.

[Robert Hairless]

romma:

So you would be okay to open carry a handgun or an AR-15 rifle down 5th Ave New York,NY with this line of thinking? Are you willing to go that far to prove your rights are violated? Do you have a concealed permit for any state now?

Me? Not a chance. But I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about people with principles, who believe that the Second Amendment is all they need or should need.

But I also don't believe that my splendid personality is sufficent to prevent overhead pigeons from dropping their poop on my head, even though my most cherished principle absolutely prohibits such outrages.

I'm the kind of unprincpled guy who wants the law on my side instead of against me. Other people might be embarrassed to admit such lack of principle but I'm just an old, grumpy, rural white male with no pride at all.

Which, by the way, is how I got to be old.

[shield20]

So what are our options?

a)Accept and deal with the state laws that we have, no matter how unnconstitutional, and hope the USSC will some day actually admit that the 14th does indeed include the 2nd, and that the 2nd does indeed protect an individual right, in any way shape or form, and ALL conflicting gun laws, at whatever level, are null and void.

b)Hope S.388 passes, and take advantage of the fed legislature forcing the states to recognize Article IV section 2 in a limited way where my privileges in NY must be recognized by every other state, and vis-versa; at the same time having the fed legislature further(?) acknowledge and condone the states as having the power to legislate arms.

Tough call.

[Robert Hairless]

Outlaw Man:

We would be worse off if they restricted it everywhere. There are nearly 20 states I can carry in with only my local license. 20 is much better than none.

I don't want my gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) federal government.

You prefer to have your gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) set of 50 states. You think it's better to fight the same fight with 50 sets of laws instead of 1 set of laws. As you said in your earlier post on this subject, you're not interested in visiting the "slave states," so expanded recognition of concealed carry permits doesn't interest you because it doesn't benefit you. It only benefits other people. Who cares about them as long as you're okay.

Got it. :)

[the naked prophet]

It's hard to understand why anyone with a CWP would not support these bills and work for their passage.

Because look how the feds mess with the drivers license. They added extra requirements to the drivers license with the REAL ID act. If they mandate reciprocity for CCW licenses, they can do the same with those. Maybe they'll require a birth certificate, maybe a yearly psychologist checkup (and maybe from a US AG-certified psychologist), maybe mandated training similar to what is required for pilots to carry on planes (and remember how they're avoiding letting anyone carry on a plane?).


They allow CWP holders to travel freely in their own country without becoming criminals if they cross into a state that does not issue permits to non residents or even to their own residents. A tourist with a CWP who wants to see his own nation's capitol is immediately criminalized when he drives into Washingon, D.C.--which is among the most dangerous cities in this country. These bills allow him and her the chance to protect their lives and their family's lives.

So what would stop those states and districts (which are so anti-gun that they don't have any permit which allows anybody to carry concealed) from passing a CCW permit law and then adding a list of restricted locations that included city streets, all parking lots, all public property, all private property without written permission of the owner, all businesses, etc. Remember, you have to abide by the local laws as to restricted locations, carry method, and legal type of weapon. For that matter, what would stop the state or district from forbidding carry of any caliber greater than .17 HM2 (remember, Oklahoma forbids any caliber greater than .45) or some wildcat .10 caliber that nobody owns? What's to stop them from requiring a solid steel holster which includes a combination padlock to hold the gun in it (remember Georgia requires guns be carried in holsters, no reason someone else couldn't specify what kind of holster)? There's all kinds of ways around this poorly-thought out bill.


These bills simply require all states to recognize other states' concealed weapons permits just as they recognize other states' drivers licenses. CWP holders from other states would still have to obey the laws in every state they visit.

See above re: feds mandating more requirements for drivers licenses, and state laws changing to de facto outlaw carry even with this new federal law.


There is no downside to these bills for rational people.

There is no benefit to anyone but the feds. Most states either recognize other states permits or issue out of state permits. Most of the states which do not, would immediately pass laws on restricted carry locations which would de facto ban concealed carry in spite of the new federal CCW reciprocity law.

There is no upside to this bill for anybody but the feds.


The basis of your objection to such a law is that it doesn't help you any. That's the way a great many other selfish gun owners think too: they're not interested in anything that doesn't benefit them personally. Sarah Brady loves you. You help her do the work she's doing.

And your argument for the law is any different? You want to carry in a few more states, and to get that you're willing to allow federal regulation of STATE issued CCW permits (the same way they regulate state issued drivers licenses, but probably stricter)? You're like a hunter who'll push for a law banning all handguns and "assault weapons" for a federal limit on the cost of a deer tag. Sarah Brady dangles a "fun-size" candy bar in front of you and steals your four-course banquet while you're still trying to get the cellophane off.

http://www.walgreens.com/dbimagecache/309699.jpg

I hope you enjoy it.

[romma]

Which, by the way, is how I got to be old. I understand now hairless.!

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Thank you Lonnie and Robert. The paranoia over this bill is amazing and unfortunate. This is a good bill in every respect.

Look they already have the power to flat-out ban in-state simple possession of firearms. They banned in-state possession of new MGs in 1986. They banned in-state simple possession of many popular rifles in 1994. At the same time they banned in-state possession of new standard-capacity magazines. Whatever gave them the authority to do those things also gives them the authority to ban possession of ALL handguns if they want to. You're all right, it is a shame that they have this authority. People should have taken to the streets and (sarcasm alert) burned down the Whitehouse in 1934 and then again in 1968 and then again in 1986 and then again in 1994 (note, I'm being sarcastic here, and I'm not actually advocating that anyone burn down anything, past present or future). Oh well it didn't happen any of those times. Now we are in a situation where these things are all federally regulated and within that situation this bill doesn't give up anything. It's purely a win.

What we need to really win is a Supreme Court decision that says that the 2nd amend is an individual right to own militia (modern infantry) weapons, and that right cannot be infringed by government at any level. I won't hold my breath for that ruling! In the meantime this is a great bill so we should support it. Let's do realistic things that make real progress rather than hoping for perfection. Anti-gunners have been chipping away with small steps for decades now. We need to chip within the reality we have because we aren't suddenly going to have a total victory SCOTUS ruling or anything else.

[romma]

We need to chip within the reality we have because we aren't suddenly going to have a total victory SCOTUS ruling or anything else. Sounds good to me LGN...

[Outlaw Man]

You prefer to have your gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) set of 50 states. You think it's better to fight the same fight with 50 sets of laws instead of 1 set of laws. As you said in your earlier post on this subject, you're not interested in visiting the "slave states," so expanded recognition of concealed carry permits doesn't interest you because it doesn't benefit you. It only benefits other people. Who cares about them as long as you're okay.

Got it.
No, I'd rather fight it to be made a law at a federal level, but a regular law is unconstitutional. I'd gladly fight for a Constitutional amendment.

I didn't say I had no interest in going to any of those places. I'd LOVE to visit California and take another trip back to D.C. (haven't been since I was a kid). I have no NEED to go there, so lobbying for CA or D.C. reciprocity isn't at the top of my list of things to do, nor would it be very effective.

I'm in favor of anything that will help our rights, but I don't want something that any judge in a federal court will throw out in a heartbeat for being unconstitutional.

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Man:
I'm in favor of anything that will help our rights, but I don't want something that any judge in a federal court will throw out in a heartbeat for being unconstitutional.

Yeah like the AWB, the Machine Gun ban, the NFA laws.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm old, too. But, I'm principled.

Answer me this: What can your myriad of state's laws and federally forced reciprocity give us over the uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

That's a serious question and I would like a serious and honest answer.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.


The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do.

[Gray Peterson]

There is no benefit to anyone but the feds. Most states either recognize other states permits or issue out of state permits. Most of the states which do not, would immediately pass laws on restricted carry locations which would de facto ban concealed carry in spite of the new federal CCW reciprocity law.

Addressed in this statement:

"Well if this bill passes, New York, California, and New Jersey will just ban carry on all public property, and then pop out of state residents that way"

Any such ban will have to affect in state residents as well as out of state residents just as much. I don't see lucky folk who managed to score a full license in NYC, NJ, or urban California, considering how much in campaign contributions and networking they had to do to be able to get their license, to all of the sudden allow their license to be completely worthless. They will fight for their licenses, and state legislators will face a choice: continue doing what they're doing and have the power brokers try to boot them out something fierce, or sit down and shut up.

And your argument for the law is any different? You want to carry in a few more states, and to get that you're willing to allow federal regulation of STATE issued CCW permits (the same way they regulate state issued drivers licenses, but probably stricter)?

Federal regulation? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Did you even read what I had posted? Do you even understand what a "Notwithstanding" law is?

As I stated before, and I'll put this in upper case letters letters to get everyone's attention because it's obvious that some peole cannot read:

THERE IS NO PENALTY AS FAR AS THE FEDGOV IS CONCERNED IF YOU CARRY AGAINST THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE BILL. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU LOSE THE NOTWITHSTANDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY, WHERE YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHARGES BY THE STATE THAT YOU'RE CARRYING IN! JUST LIKE IF YOU LOADED YOUR GUN THAT'S IN YOUR TRUNK WHEN THE FOPA INTERSTATE PROTECTION LAW (18USC926A) ONLY PROTECTS UNLOADED TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES AGAINST STATE LAWS LIKE NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS WHERE ALL POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED/UNLICENSED HANDGUNS IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. IF YOU DECIDE TO LOAD UP THAT GUN IN YOUR TRUNK, YOU FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTION AND SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS AT THAT POINT.

YOU NEED THE FOPA LAW FOR TRANSPORTING ACROSS PLACES LIKE NEW YORK STATE AND MASSACHUSETTS, NOT PLACES LIKE LOUISIANA AND NEW MEXICO WHERE YOUR VEHICLE IS CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR HOME AND THAT YOU MAY CARRY WHATEVER YOU WISH INSIDE OF YOUR VEHICLE IN THESE STATES.

If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

[pacodelahoya]

Aw Woody,

Now ya know thats just a doggone piece of paper, and heck, what's principals got to do with anything.:rolleyes:

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yeah, I know, Paco.

I've been thinking how good it would be to inscribe the Second Amendment on all my bullets. That would be one way to make sure they got the message... :evil:

Woody

You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. B.E.Wood

[Lupinus]

Very few of us want a national CC permit.

What many, however, are pushing for is a national law that says they have to recognize one states CC permit just the same as they do any other license. Just like they have to recognize a marrige license or a divers license. Those licenses aren't goverment regulated and are state issued with the requirments set by the states issuing. Many want the same concept for CC.

[Robert Hairless]

Outlaw Man:

No, I'd rather fight it to be made a law at a federal level, but a regular law is unconstitutional. I'd gladly fight for a Constitutional amendment.

...

I'm in favor of anything that will help our rights, but I don't want something that any judge in a federal court will throw out in a heartbeat for being unconstitutional.

No, don't confuse yourself. You are not "in favor of anything that will help our rights." You attacked a couple of kindergarten-level bills because they help our rights but don't expand yours. No rational person who read your messages could possibly believe your juvenile explanation that you think "a regular law is unconstitutional" but that you would "gladly fight for a Constitutional amendment." You shouldn't believe it either: you will become even more confused if you try.

Regular laws aren't unconstitional. If they were, the entire country would have ground to a halt sometime in the Eighteenth Century.

What Constitution would you want amended? If you're talking about amending the Constitution of the United States of America to guarantee concealed carry reciprocity among all the states, you need to take a deep breath and try to realize its naivete. The Constitution is not the place for details, it is extremely difficult to amend (as it should be), and the process is expensive and time consuming. That is why there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution in all of this country's history.

If these two bills can make it into law, we get something useful with no downside at all. People who think that such a law would allow the federal government to think that it can make laws about guns are at least a little bit crazy. The federal government has thought so for a long time, has enacted many laws that affect guns and gun owners, and will continue to do so no matter what any lunatics say about why it can't and shouldn't.

Anyone who talks about "the uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is simply not in touch with reality. Individuals have no right to keep and bear arms in the entire State of New York. It can't be infringed there because it doesn't exist there. Federal Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled that it didn't in Bach v. Pataki, a case decided in 2003. If enough gun owners continue to behave like lunatics and threaten people whose goodwill and votes they desparately need, the chances are very good that federal courts in even more states will rule as Mordue did. Even the most objective and learned jurist is a person too. Never threaten people who can decide your fate, and never call them names. It is Not Real Good Thinking to do so.

As I said in a previous message, I enjoy watching the antics of gun lunatics--especially those who think they hold all the cards because they know about the Second Amendment and are sure they know what it means. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means, not what people with fake names in gun forums say it means or think it means. The "all or nothing" crowd is especially amusing because they haven't caught on to a few things about human relationships. What they want is confrontations in which there is a winner and a loser. What they don't get is that they won't win this confrontation, at least not while they threaten to shoot people and express contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with them. They also don't get it that anyone who demands "all or nothing" had better be prepared to have nothing. One major Hairless Rule of Life is that it's very, very stupid to demand "all or nothing" when you're in an obviously inferior position.

Example:

You are on the verge of getting fired. Your employer holds an annual evaluation with you, notes a great many points you must improve, and gives you a month to improve them all or you will be fired. He pauses and asks for your response. You, being a gun owner, say: "I demand a promotion to Vice-President, my own secretary, a company car, a substantial travel budget, six months vacation every year, and a $10,000 raise--or I quit."

What does your employer say when you have finished? Start with something other than "Son, your mother and I love you ...." :)

[RayMel1]

More Big Brother

[Gray Peterson]

More Big Brother

I guess reading comprehension is lacking.

[pacodelahoya]

Real high road there Bob, calling someone juvenile.

You are being intelectually dishonest when you say that there is no right to bear arms in NYC. The right is there, it's just that a government more powerful than the individuals infringe on it. That would be like saying that if NYC taxed air tommorrow and you didn't pay the tax, that they could put a baggie over your face.

Tell you what, you go ahead and trust the feds to do the right thing, me, I'm gonna keep on doing what I've been doing.

I am willing to live and die for my principles. I will not lick anyones boots. I am quite in touch with reality, hence I am not in an asylum or the "joint". However, I do appluad the likes of Mr. Fincher etc.

There are worse things than being thought of as a 2a nut.

[Outlaw Man]

I was actually enjoying this discussion for a while. Then I get attacked. Let me know when you want to continue this like an adult. I'd like for you to understand where I'm coming from, but you, at this point, don't really seem to be interested.

[the naked prophet]

As I stated before, and I'll put this in upper case letters letters to get everyone's attention because it's obvious that some peole cannot read:

THERE IS NO PENALTY AS FAR AS THE FEDGOV IS CONCERNED IF YOU CARRY AGAINST THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE BILL. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU LOSE THE NOTWITHSTANDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY, WHERE YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHARGES BY THE STATE THAT YOU'RE CARRYING IN! JUST LIKE IF YOU LOADED YOUR GUN THAT'S IN YOUR TRUNK WHEN THE FOPA INTERSTATE PROTECTION LAW (18USC926A) ONLY PROTECTS UNLOADED TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES AGAINST STATE LAWS LIKE NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS WHERE ALL POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED/UNLICENSED HANDGUNS IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. IF YOU DECIDE TO LOAD UP THAT GUN IN YOUR TRUNK, YOU FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTION AND SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS AT THAT POINT.

YOU NEED THE FOPA LAW FOR TRANSPORTING ACROSS PLACES LIKE NEW YORK STATE AND MASSACHUSETTS, NOT PLACES LIKE LOUISIANA AND NEW MEXICO WHERE YOUR VEHICLE IS CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR HOME AND THAT YOU MAY CARRY WHATEVER YOU WISH INSIDE OF YOUR VEHICLE IN THESE STATES.

If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

And your little rant relates to what I said... how? I didn't say anything about federal penalties for not having a CCW or drivers license. I didn't say anything relating to federal penalties at all.

I said that just as the feds have mandated requirements on the drivers licenses that they force all states to recognize, they will mandate requirements for CCW licenses as well. This has nothing to do with state law and your favorite word "notwithstanding" does not have anything to do with this.

If you still do not understand, or just didn't bother to read anything that I wrote, feel free to ask for federal restrictions on all state CCW licenses in exchange for being able to carry concealed in one or two states.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Anyone who talks about "the uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is simply not in touch with reality. Individuals have no right to keep and bear arms in the entire State of New York. It can't be infringed there because it doesn't exist there. Federal Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled that it didn't in Bach v. Pataki, a case decided in 2003.

Robert, you have this exactly backward. Everyone in this country has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's no different than everyone's right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers. It's no different from everyone's right to be free from double jeopardy. Regardless of how you perceive things, the truth about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in New York is that it is infringed. I take the word of our Founding Fathers and the ratification of the Second Amendment by the several states over the machinations of one judge. Not only that, I understand why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been protected as it is in the Constitution. It makes sense.

Besides, the inability of Judge Mordue to read and understand the Second Amendment is not cause to accept his misreading as fact simply because he is a judge. On his power to interpret the law there is little question. He has no power to interpret the Constitution, however. The Constitution has been written in plain language. "...shall not be infringed" is not in any way unclear.

In all the text in that case, there is no explanation as to why the judge said the Second Amendment does not protect a right of the individual("people" being the plural of "individual"). He simply threw that statement out there, just like the Court in US v. Miller pulled the statement out of thin air that arms must meet some useful militia purpose to be included in any arms the keeping and bearing of which would be protected by the Second Amendment.

Any such call would be in the purview of Congress(Article III, Section 2, Clause (2)), but since Congress is among those prohibited to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, there can never be any such call.

If enough gun owners continue to behave like lunatics and threaten people whose goodwill and votes they desparately need, the chances are very good that federal courts in even more states will rule as Mordue did. Even the most objective and learned jurist is a person too. Never threaten people who can decide your fate, and never call them names. It is Not Real Good Thinking to do so.

You got that backward, too. Those who are in those positions hold those positions at the mercy and good graces of the people who put them there. That's US. We the People. Anyone in such a position who would take offense and exact personal revenge upon anyone for standing up for their rights needs to be removed from office immediately. Such a person in such a position obviously cannot apply the law with proper discretion and is not of good character, nor is such a person acting in good behavior. That behavior is cause for impeachment and subject to prosecution as well in good order.

Is there any such employee of the people you are aware of? Let the rest of us know so we might throw the bum out.

Woody

God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood