Texan Scott said:As a [strike]Texan[/strike] Arkansan, I simply should not have to sit by and allow California, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois to have any say in how my rights are exercised in my home state. They shouldn't even get a vote, not even a seat at the table, not even a voice in the discussion. I do not CARE what compromise they think would be "reasonable", because I shouldn't have to compromise with them.
Texan Scott said it well enough that I'm just going to shamelessly plagiarize and edit. If I were a Texan, I wouldn't even edit.
I've aware of that and have never claimed otherwise.Warp said:I understand why you feel that way, but even Arkansas is part of the United States and is subject to Federal law.Spats McGee said:Texan Scott said it well enough that I'm just going to shamelessly plagiarize and edit. If I were a Texan, I wouldn't even edit.
I took this to mean a standardized, national safety qualification course. One of my problems with regulating something like a safety qualification course for the RKBA at the federal level is the same objection that I have to a National CCL. It allows more out-of-state legislators to meddle in things inside my state, where they have no business. For example, in setting standards for the safety qualification course at the federal level, compromises will have to be reached. That means that legislators from (relatively gun-friendly) Arkansas will have to compromise with legislators from the less gun-friendly states. There's really only one possible outcome for that: more restriction on the gun-friendly states.DammitBoy said:1. A National ID Card issued to any law-abiding citizen that passes a background check and a safety qualification course.
Scott, are you saying it's ok for states to infringe upon the rkba inside their borders?
No. But that's not the issue raised by the OP's question.
In your words there were gas crunches in the 70s. That was the springboard for you to start the screed against the federal government for creating a "one size fits all" solution. If legislation is made to conserve fuel by ensuring efficiency with speed limits, the higher population density states would be subsidizing the lower population states' burden. Which is okay I guess, if you like socialism.No, there wasn't- I worked in the energy industry at that time - there was no actual shortage at all
Yes I did read it - Nowhere does it say eliminate the NICS;
As mentioned before, you should read it again.3. The bearer will be able to buy any firearm in any state of the Union without additional backgrounds checks upon presentation of the National ID Card.
Their power is proportional to their representation in Congress, which means that they are a small minority.Right........if you truly think that NYC, DC, Chicago and the like won't set the rules, you are badly mistaken - national soft drink rule? not too far behind, but places like I mentioned will sure have input, even if it is to make the costs so prohibitive you can't own a gun.
So you were incorrect when you mentioned that we can no longer mail-order firearms to our house from a catalog? Interesting.As to shipping, there aren't a whole lot of regulations now,
It would also be a good idea to clarify the shipping capabilities.I'm thinking of using several great suggestions in this thread to make a counter proposal to post at the other social/game forum that would address a lot of the complaints in this thread.
Things like a "shall issue" clause and letting states handle their own safety course requirements...
The range qualification should be no more stringent than the state law enforcement officer qualification.
Exactly!There shouldn't be a range qualification requirement.
Should there be a written test qualification requirement?There shouldn't be a range qualification requirement.
Should there be a written test qualification requirement?
So how do you validate successful completion of the safety course?
So how do you validate successful completion of the safety course?
That walks all over state's rights.