National CCW for those supporting states right

Hmmm, lots of good arguments made here. Think i heard the same argument from chuck schumer when he was giving his speech during the trump inauguration.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean? What argument did Charles Schumer make that someone here has made? Did you hear him say that the federal government should force the states to accept firearms carry licenses? I doubt it, but I didn't listen to him.

No one believes in the constitution no more than myself.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Ok. I'm sure that no one believes in the constitution no more than you.

Some of you have elevated yourselves above me, as being, a slow dimwitted redneck, as thinking you had to explain everything to me because i was slow.

Click to expand...

No, but you did repeatedly ask to have the use of a simple analogy explained to you and acted (pretended?) as though you didn't understand how it was relevant to the question at hand.

If you think that the public will accept, you wearing a gun in places where a gun has been taboo for hundreds of years think again.

Click to expand...

Really? Seems that since the 1990s a LOT of places have decided to accept wearing a gun in public.

When you aligned yourself with trump, you became bubba in the general public.

Click to expand...

The "general public" being the roughly 50% of the voters who voted for Trump, or the roughly 50% of the voters that voted for Hillary?

Seems that there must be a whole lot of "Bubbas" out there sticking out like sore thumbs, then.

Shame that were both on the same side but you can not see that.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've no doubt we're on the same side. You just don't seem to be very interested in effectively working to help out those who aren't in your "safe" states, preferring to tell them that the federal government shouldn't be asked to help them, and that if they don't like it they should just move.

Just because you get a permit to wear a gun in new yorkcity, philadelphia, chicago, detroit, that a permit will be magic think again.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be magic, and it isn't always going to be easy or comfortable. Yes, if I open carry in Philadelphia the cops there can demand to see my LCTF, which might cause me a moment's bother. But that's all they can do.

Pushing to make the world a better place usually does require effort, risk, and discomfort to those leading the fight. What's your point?

This is a culture problem, because the general public has been brainwashed, to believe, that anyone with a gun is an automatic lunatic out to mass kill.

Click to expand...

Again with the "general public?" Seeing as something between 25% and 50% of homes nationwide contain gun owners that seems a bit of a stretch. This kind of hyperbole talk does absolutely nothing to prove your point, whatever that is.

If you wanted a expert on the constitution affairs, you voted for the wrong man.

Click to expand...

Did somebody ever say that Trump was a Constitutional scholar? I didn't. Heck, MOST Constitutional scholars aren't struct constructionists or textualists or originalists, so MOST Constitutional scholars (and judges) aren't going to agree with a strict word-for-word literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't WANT any of those Constitutional scholars as President. I want a guy who sees it my way, or at least acts like he does. Don't know if Trump is that man, but I guess we might agree he was a better choice than the other party's candidate on election day, eh?

Wonder if my location had been north rather than south, would you have jumped on me so quick.

Click to expand...

Oh don't hide behind north vs. south malarkey. We've responded to the words YOU SAID. Not what location you entered in your profile.

A day will come when north and south will have to pull together but attitudes have to change before this can happen.

Click to expand...

I've not met anyone (except for some southerners, ironically ... well, Virginians, but that counts, right?) who seemed to care where someone else hailed from. What matters is whether you work for people's rights or not.

Gun control is culture problem, not a govermental problem. When the areas affected quit voting in masses for these anti gun politicans, things will change. Go to your public, plead your case and with time maybe they will change.

Click to expand...

Ok, right. Fine, and we all agree, to the extent that that is possible. Except that this doesn't answer the question of why you oppose using the power of the federal government to open the way for citizens of some states to exercise their rights, even if the local voting majority doesn't want them to have those rights? Remember that is a big part of why we live in a republic, not a democracy: it is supposed to better protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

There are some good arguments for, and some good arguments against. What are your arguments?

I'm not sure if a generalization is true, so please take my comment as a bit of tongue in cheek. At least ONE constitutional scholar that I know of seemingly studied the constitution for the sole purpose of getting around it but Trump succeeded him!

I agree however in 2015 there were 54 Republican Senators and now there are 52. Like I said, he does not have the political muscle as of yet to force an issue on guns because the Democrats will just filibuster the bill. Don't feel disappointed because of this as he'll appoint lower court justices and Supreme Court justices where a lot of these battles will take place.

Ttexastom said:

Hmmm, lots of good arguments made here. Think i heard the same argument from chuck schumer when he was giving his speech during the trump inauguration. No one believes in the constitution no more than myself. Some of you have elevated yourselves above me, as being, a slow dimwitted redneck, as thinking you had to explain everything to me because i was slow.
If you think that the public will accept, you wearing a gun in places where a gun has been taboo for hundreds of years think again. When you aligned yourself with trump, you became bubba in the general public.
Shame that were both on the same side but you can not see that. Just because you get a permit to wear a gun in new yorkcity, philadelphia, chicago, detroit, that a permit will be magic think again. This is a culture problem, because the general public has been brainwashed, to believe, that anyone with a gun is an automatic lunatic out to mass kill. If you wanted a expert on the constitution affairs, you voted for the wrong man. Ted cruz was who i voted for because he has had vast experience in constitutional affairs. Wonder if my location had been north rather than south, would you have jumped on me so quick. Just remember this, you voted for trump. Now you are bubba to the general public. The masses will view you as the new redneck. A day will come when north and south will have to pull together but attitudes have to change before this can happen.
Gun control is culture problem, not a govermental problem. When the areas affected quit voting in masses for these anti gun politicans, things will change. Go to your public, plead your case and with time maybe they will change.
Not a north vs south problem.

Click to expand...

Huh? Say what? First of all, using paragraphs will often help you to be understood ... I've read your post over and still cannot fathom exactly what it is you are attempting to communicate (and it has zero to do with your geographical location).

wally said:

Why not, your voter registration could be your "carry permit" The Feds step in all the time to force states to lower the bar for voting rights, if you can vote, you should be able to own and carry a firearm!

Click to expand...

I agree if you can vote, you should be carry a firearm concealed, and I already have registered/been licensed to CWC with my state. But a drivers' license or any other valid form of ID should be that license, not having to pay another fee and get on a list. Again, I don't see the Feds getting in the business of issuing CWC permits, only mandating that the states reciprocate in recognizing permits from another state.

buck460XVR remarked in post 50,

... Until states have similar requirements for licensing (like driver's licenses), I don't see reciprocity happening. As for a Federal Mandate giving a blanketed "constitutional carry" permit without any requirements of age and/or training, I don't see that happening either. What I do see is a Federal mandate for states to have similar requirements and licensing which will make reciprocity feasible and realistic, even in states like [California].

Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I am unalterably against the federal reciprocity concept.

I repeat myself: "What laws are passed which are satisfactory to us today, may be amended tomorrow to be not so satisfactory."

And I add that whatever "bulletproof" protections are instituted today can be compromised and corroded by clever "interpretations" tomorrow.

"No" on national reciprocity as applied by any federal law.

Period.

Terry, 230RN

Which is precisely why I am unalterably against the federal reciprocity concept.

Click to expand...

I'd hate to ever say I'm "unalterably" anything. Seems to presuppose more than is wise.

After all, the law COULD be written to say something like, "states will give full faith and credit to firearms carry credentials issued by any of the other states." Period. Then you'd have to be pretty danged prickly to stand on an unalterably opposed viewpoint, because there are no stipulations and any thing any state wants to do has to be sufficient for any other, with no federal strings.

That might be unlikely, but it also is possible and so defies an unalterable negative view.

I repeat myself: "What laws are passed which are satisfactory to us today, may be amended tomorrow to be not so satisfactory."

Click to expand...

Of course, the problem with that is that it implies that having NO law about something today somehow affects whether an unsatisfactory law will be in place tomorrow. It doesn't.

And in world full of bad laws we have to contend with, it might not be as painful as we're all convinced it will be, to have one that TRIES, or at least starts out trying, to be favorable to us.

Look at FOPA '86. We all hate it -- HATE it -- because of the Hughes Amendment. That's the only part most of us ever talk about. But FOPA did some really important things and we are probably better off on the whole to have it than not to have it. We could have said we don't want a Firearm Owners' Protection Act because it could be changed later to cause us distress. It wasn't. It was changed RIGHT THEN to cause us distress. And we're still better off with it.

Something to consider deeply when deciding to be strongly opposed to the theory of a law that hasn't been passed yet.

Sam1911 said:

I'd hate to ever say I'm "unalterably" anything. Seems to presuppose more than is wise.

After all, the law COULD be written to say something like, "states will give full faith and credit to firearms carry credentials issued by any of the other states." Period. Then you'd have to be pretty danged prickly to stand on an unalterably opposed viewpoint, because there are no stipulations and any thing any state wants to do has to be sufficient for any other, with no federal strings.

That might be unlikely, but it also is possible and so defies an unalterable negative view.

Of course, the problem with that is that it implies that having NO law about something today somehow affects whether an unsatisfactory law will be in place tomorrow. It doesn't.

Click to expand...

What it should say is: Any attempt at the state, county, or city level to infringe on the second amendment shall hereby be deemed to be in violation of the constitution of the United States of America. No license, permit, fee, tax, or requirement, other than being a citizen in good standing of the United States of America shall be imposed on any persons owning or carrying a firearm, either openly or concealed .

Well...ok. Yeah, that would be great. Of course, the word "infringe" is already in the 2nd Amendment and the Justices and legislators have never managed to agree with US perfectly on what the term means. BUt that second sentence is grand.

Love to see it happen, but it's pretty unlikely to see a federal "Constitutional Carry" law.

Sam1911, That animated map of the evolution of carry rights is enlightening! Talk about a movement!

Could you post a link to where you got it from, or did you put it together yourself? I'd like to share it.

Sam1911 said:

Well...ok. Yeah, that would be great. Of course, the word "infringe" is already in the 2nd Amendment and the Justices and legislators have never managed to agree with US perfectly on what the term means. BUt that second sentence is grand.

Love to see it happen, but it's pretty unlikely to see a federal "Constitutional Carry" law.

Click to expand...

Kinda' thought the second sentence spelled out what "infringe" means. A bill like this would be intended to end the "interpretative constitutionalist's" definition contortions.

SA/DA FAN said:

"interpretative constitutionalists"

Click to expand...

There you go. And what's a reasonable definition of "bear," while they're at it? And, for that matter, what's "arms?" Does that include switchblades, e.g.?

Sorry, Sam1911, but I remain unalterably opposed to the Feds doing any tinkering with CCW. "Their" "reasonable" does not necessarily agree with my definitions. Nor does "their" "common sense".

And I repeat, what is writ today (in law and regulations) can be edited, reinterpreted, re-"policied," or redefined tomorrow.

After all, look what happened to the plain simple word "infringed."

Terry

Crawdad1 said:

I agree however in 2015 there were 54 Republican Senators and now there are 52. Like I said, he does not have the political muscle as of yet to force an issue on guns because the Democrats will just filibuster the bill. Don't feel disappointed because of this as he'll appoint lower court justices and Supreme Court justices where a lot of these battles will take place.

Click to expand...

At least somebody sees the reality of any pro gun legislation getting thru congress. Ain't going to happen folks. Senate is going to shut it down just like they did when Obama tried to get AWB2 passed. Makes us all feel good to think about it and support it but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Trump may like to see it but he won't get any legislation to sign. An EO won't change anything.

The thing that has to happen is a SC decision that affirms one's individual right to carry in all 50 states. That could happen as individual rights incorporated under 14A seems to be the trend these days. I think that has about a 50/50 chance.

One thing I'm sure of tho is that we are heading back to 1969 and Richard Nixon's "New Federalism". That isn't going to do much for any one-size-fits-all-states CWP.

And I repeat, what is writ today (in law and regulations) can be edited, reinterpreted, re-"policied," or redefined tomorrow.

Click to expand...

So then you do feel that it is worse to pass a law today that tries to help us (since it may be changed to hurt us someday and thus become a negative law) than to pass no positive law today, even though (if that positive law could be reinterpreted later, then with similar ease,) a new negative law could be passed?

I'm afraid I do not understand the animosity or fear that I've heard so many times here about how a GOOD law could be changed into a BAD law someday. Why is that such a greater terror than the more basic fear that if we pass no GOOD laws, BAD laws will come anyway? It isn't like a bad law can't exist without starting out in our favor. The idea is kind of silly.

Those that follow football have told me that even if you're going to lose possession of the ball at some point in the game, you still want to move that ball just as far down the field in your favor as you can before you lose control of it. Because then the enemy has just that much farther to go to push it back onto your turf. If you sit with it "safe" in one spot and don't push it forward, the enemy has a much shorter path to score when he finally grabs it back.

Why are we such wimps about moving the ball forward? (***) We are certainly very afraid of pushing offense because we've been on the defense for so long that we're unused to it, but I'd suggest that it's time to gather our courage and fight FORWARD. Not just sit on the ball like mother hens protecting an egg.

If we can't get behind a national reciprocity law, what kind of federal gun legislation WILL we be able to all support? Any? Seems like this "don't touch nothin'!!!" argument would be able to completely stymie any attempt to pass any pro-gun law. If the feds make it happen the feds can take it away or worse, so better not ask for anything good!



(*** -- That is not to discount those of us who've suddenly discovered a deep committment to "how things aught to be" and who contend that they don't feel that politics should be fought this way, and so they'll hold the high ground and not vie for the federal government to fight on our side, the way the opposition has used the feds to hurt us in the past. I find that argument just a touch impractical, reminiscent of the guy standing on the tracks until he's flattened because he just knows the train SHOUDN'T be coming this way. But idealism is often tough to argue against.)

After all, look what happened to the plain simple word "infringed."

Click to expand...

I believe you've self-defeated your own logic here.

If your example is "look at what happened to ...'infringed'," then you would appear to be arguing that we'd be BETTER OFF if the 2nd Amendment hadn't been written.

After all, you're saying that a good law being reinterpreted is absolutely -- unalterably as you say -- too big a risk and such a law should not even be written.

So the word 'infringed' has been read with a meaning that doesn't live up to our desires in 2017. Yeah, but we're still far, FAR ahead of where we would be if that word and its surrounding text had not been written.

Why would the same argument (see "moving the ball downfield" from post 89) not hold true for a new law we push to have passed today?

Sam1911, That animated map of the evolution of carry rights is enlightening! Talk about a movement!

Could you post a link to where you got it from, or did you put it together yourself? I'd like to share it

Click to expand...

Read the little link given at the bottom of the picture. It's on wiki.

I can understand the whole state's rights argument for other areas. The country wasn't founded on the premise that marijuana would be prohibited. This (constitutional carry) by it's very nature is a federal matter. The states have no rights to go against the constitution. It is THE founding document that binds the states to the union. We should encourage the federal government to do everything we can get it to do to shore it up and keep it out of the hands of state's political whims.

I hope all you folks arguing for national reciprocity remember your arguments 1873 days from now when Senator A says "We can't have those yahoos from (red State) running around our fair (blue State) without even any training in gun safety, or even a test of competency."

And he introduces a bill requiring 48 hours of training and the demonstrated competency of an NRA Pistol Master. Et Cetera.

So Senator B from a red State says, hey, Senator A, that sounds halfway reasonable to me, and if you'll vote for my bill on getting (big corporation) sited in my little red State, I'll vote for yours.

And the rest will be history... which is no more "future history-like" than your fine words.

And I hope you'll remember them if my "future history" version comes to pass.

I've iterated this several times in several ways, and if people who are all agog and atwitter about being able to carry in various blue States (whoopie! yay! ) think letting the feds start playing around with CCW is OK, so be it.

Maybe my crystal ball is better than yours, maybe not.

I'm kinda done with this one because I'm apparently swimming upstream on this board. I said it all before and I ain't takin' it back:

Don't let the federal government toy with concealed carry.

For what is writ today can be amended tomorrow.

Or in 1873 days.

Terry, 230RN

230RN said:

For what is writ today can be amended tomorrow.

Or in 1873 days.

Terry, 230RN

Click to expand...

While that is true, it's always been true.....and it is just as true on the state level as it is on the Federal level. Just as the definition of infringed can change tomorrow depending on the selection of Supreme Court Justices, and yes there is, always has been and always will be a definition set upon that term as used in the 2nd. And not everyone has agreed on that definition for as long as it has been defined. Most states(all I believe) require some form of minimal safety training before a person can hunt. Those same states generally recognize that training from another state. I see no reason the same cannot be done with CWC. While I know that for a few folks, any required training is a form of infringement, basic safety instruction is not difficult nor should it be expensive. as with hunting licenses, folks with a previous CWC license, should be grandfathered. In my state, that same hunter safety requirement is all one needs for their CWC. The state course is under $25.

While we can all claim "god given rights", those rights will always be defined within the political demographics we live within. Kinda why folks emigrate to other parts of the world many times.

Terry, I see the crystal ball view you're promoting. But you really just completely ignored my questions, and in fact, almost everything I wrote.



Why is it more of a risk that a law could be changed from good to bad, or even just somewhat less good, than that an unrelated law could be written later which does the same thing to us?
You (and many others, not singling you out) are saying that it is better to not even start off in a positive direction, because there's a chance that, 1873 days from now I guess, things might be pushed in a negative direction.

Things could ALWAYS be pushed in a negative direction. I don't think they really need our help to get that going, and they don't seem to need a GOOD bill from which to launch their bad bills. What is writ today can be amended tomorrow, well sure, but it isn't like NOT having written a good bill keeps them from hitting us with a bad one, at all!

Sitting still and holding the status quo does not appear to offer us any protection. That isn't an effective way of preserving or advancing our rights. So why do it? Why shelter in place, if that offers no protection from the storm?

Is there no concept here of the idea of moving the line of scrimmage, if you will, way down the field in our favor while we can? Why not fight from THERE, whenever the fight comes and we lose whatever advantages we have now? Why are we so hung up on the idea that we should sit down right HERE and wait for circumstances to move against us?

I think I'd rather stack up a bunch of quite pro-gun, pro-RKBA-freedom stuff while we might have the chance to, and then let them try to tear all that back down if they ever have the reigns again, than hold fast to our current "ok-ish" position. Seems to me that when they start beating on our rights, it would be a lot better to have a much more expanded national view of those rights for them to have to knock down before they can assail the position we currently hold.

To put some practical examples together, lets say we fight hard now and in the next couple of years we win the silencer issue, we win national reciprocity, and we win something else like SBR/SBS removal from NFA. Then 10 years from now the cycle of politics has swung, our guys are all out of office, and whatever antis are still alive rise up and start wailing on our rights. Well, there's a bunch of new stuff they might want to try to assault. Now they have to fight back way "upfield" and spend their political capitol removing all those good laws before they can even start attacking the current-day issues like UBC, assault rifle bans, etc.

Or maybe they don't! Maybe they just ignore all the recent pro-gun stuff and come at the AWB angle right out of the gate. Ok, well, GREAT! Then we can enjoy our national carry and our silencers, and our SBRs or whatever, while we're back to fighting the black rifle question.

I just DON'T see how the dire warning you're promulgating is a risk worth derailing forward motion on our part.

We have two choices. Go forwards or go backwards.

If we go forward then "they" have further to go.

If we sit still then we're losing ground as "they" start from here, which is the same as going backwards.

Some of you seem to be saying let's not go for the touchdown because that gives the other team a chance to score.

230RN said:

I hope all you folks arguing for national reciprocity remember your arguments 1873 days from now when Senator A says "We can't have those yahoos from (red State) running around our fair (blue State) without even any training in gun safety, or even a test of competency."

And he introduces a bill requiring 48 hours of training and the demonstrated competency of an NRA Pistol Master. Et Cetera.

So Senator B from a red State says, hey, Senator A, that sounds halfway reasonable to me, and if you'll vote for my bill on getting (big corporation) sited in my little red State, I'll vote for yours.

And the rest will be history... which is no more "future history-like" than your fine words.

And I hope you'll remember them if my "future history" version comes to pass.

I've iterated this several times in several ways, and if people who are all agog and atwitter about being able to carry in various blue States (whoopie! yay! ) think letting the feds start playing around with CCW is OK, so be it.

Maybe my crystal ball is better than yours, maybe not.

I'm kinda done with this one because I'm apparently swimming upstream on this board. I said it all before and I ain't takin' it back:

Don't let the federal government toy with concealed carry.

For what is writ today can be amended tomorrow.

Or in 1873 days.

Terry, 230RN

Click to expand...

They can do that NOW! What is your opposition to at least putting up another barrier that they need to get through?

I suppose some folks in red states would rather not risk legislation that could affect their existing rights, even though the legislation could aid their brothers and sisters in blue states. After all, if the people living in blue states wanted gun friendly laws, then they should elect like minded leaders. But I do live in a blue state and am asking for your support as a fellow 2A supporter. My hope is that we stand united for the good of the whole country, and these discussions are a step in the right direction. Thanks to everyone here.

I can understand states rights but not when it comes down to what amounts to harming human rights.

As a nation that was founded by all of us coming together to push back regression, all while knowing they can attempt it again, is dumb founding to me that that concept is lost with some.

I suppose some folks in red states would rather not risk legislation that could affect their existing rights, even though the legislation could aid their brothers and sisters in blue states.

Click to expand...

I guess I've not understood why a good law, established, represents a threat greater than NO law established? Why do we think that, if someone wants to hurt our rights, they'd have an easier time of it if there's a good law in place they could tinker with instead of just writing up whatever they want from scratch?