Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

For your consideration

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by DammitBoy, Nov 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Axel Larson

    Axel Larson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Vermont, now Saint Albans
    The Problem is it would take away the States right to govern themselves, for good or bad a state has the right to develop its own laws for the most part.
    What most people seem to have a problem with is that it would have to be ENFORCED by the federal government.
    At the federal level things are easier to give and take as a whole versus states get to pick and choose meaning some have strict gun laws some have more liberal gun laws. The point being right now it is harder for someone to take them away all at once.
    I get the person who wrote it meant well but I regret to say I could not support such a proposal. It would in itself undermine other freedoms that are just as important.
    If I am wrong in any way please just correct me but that is my understanding of it.
     
  2. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,443
    Location:
    NC
    The 2nd amendment is a national right, not a state right but each state has decided to regulate it how it sees fit. VT has no governing gun laws other than federal laws. IL has it's own laws where you cannot carry, period. CA and MA have laws that choke your rights and it seems that southern and western states have more liberal gun laws than northern and northeast states.

    Interpreting the second amendment is now up for 50 different interpretations instead of one. Federal form 4473 should be the only regulation that governs all states. Is freedom of speech regulated by state? Is freedom of the press regulated by each state? Is freedom of religion regulated by each state? Why should any state have the right to override the Constitution of the united States? Form 4473 is complete enough to grant or deny the right to bear arms. No more regulation is needed. If I wish to give my girlfriend a few of my guns, she lives 1/2 hour away in another state. I have to send my handguns thru my FFL to her FFL who then transfers them to her. It costs $35 for my shipping and FFL transfer per handgun to send it and it costs $35 for her FFL fees on her end. That $210 to give her 3 of my handguns plus hours of time on both sides. I have a handgun permit in my state. She has a handgun permit in her state. This is pure BS but by allowing each state the right to regulate a basic freedom, we get this crap.

    I go to a gun show in a state next to me. I want to buy a gun. I have to find an (my) instate FFL at the show to accept the transfer and pay him to hand it from the seller to me. If there is no FFL from my state then the seller has to ship it to my FFL and I have to pay shipping on top of the transfer fees. I am standing across from him and holding the gun. I have my cash and permit. This is a good thing? For fear that we will lose our rights (giving authority to one governing body) we are giving the power to 50 different states who each have their own agenda. I'm sorry but that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    If you can pass all the answers on form 4473 then you should be able to buy in any state, at any time. With computers we have today, there is a paper trail no matter where you buy except private party and in some states (CT) you have to let the state govt know when you buy or sell private party. This is just wrong. 50 fingers in the pot cannot ever be better than 1 if that 1 knows where the boundaries are. SCOTUS has already stated their wishes. I doubt they will look at another ruling to take away these rights just because it has changed their judges. There has to be compelling reasons to challenge an amendment. It's already been challenged.
     
  3. Axel Larson

    Axel Larson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Vermont, now Saint Albans
    First off having to go through a FFL because of state borders was last I checked a FEDERAL ruling.
    Second some states do recognize carry permits from other states, I realize not all do but it is better then nothing.
    Thirdly the fact is the reason CA, IL, NY and so on have strict gun laws are because of the major cities in those states. The Major cities end up running most of the state it is what it is, I am not saying it is right or that it can't be changed but for now that is how it is and I for one do not want the chance of the major cities running the entire country, might not happen but still.
    Maybe I need to take off the tinfoil hat:).
    Also VT does have state gun laws for instance no suppressors and no loaded long arms in vehicles.
     
  4. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Very well put Larry! The States will make no law restricting an enumerated constitutional right.

    And for the States Rights advocates, states really don't have rights since the civil war.
     
  5. CZguy

    CZguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,976
    Location:
    Missouri
    Unfortunately, that's the plain truth of it.
     
  6. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    Why do you feel the NEED for the NICS in the first place? It wasn't necessary for centuries beforehand
    Number 4 says to transport a firearm with regards to standard shipping practices - I transport mine loaded - that is against standard shipping practices

    This whole proposal is another compromise on our part with nothing coming our way except greater fed control

    The comment about the NICS working perfectly? I bought many a gun where the NICS wasn't used - originally because it didn't exist, and at other times because I bought FTF
     
  7. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    Your FFL at an out of state show handing you a gun when not at his place of business?
     
  8. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    @ oneounceload; As presented, NYC and Chicago would have no say concerning CCW nationwide. In fact, that's the whole point of the proposal - to stop states and cities from restricting an enumerated constitutional right.

    Transporting firearms is in regards to shipping - not CCW.

    Further, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you say States will no longer have a say and then in the next sentence, you say some States will still have a say. Which is it?

    How would you change any wording in the proposal to make it better, giving more protection to the gun owner from the government (state or federal)?
     
  9. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,443
    Location:
    NC
    My FFL does this. He says that at a gun show it is considered an extension of his business for the purpose of the show. Who am I to disagree or question him? It's all in the paperwork anyways, logging it in, logging it out. That remains the same.
     
  10. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    You still haven't explained why those states are not beholden to the laws of physics that govern fuel efficiency. There was a gas crunch at the time, remember?
    Which explains why there are national soft drink laws and a national restriction on concealed carry...

    Again, have you even read the proposal before reverting to your anti-federal government stance? It would eliminate the NICS and remove the special treatment for shipping firearms.

    He might believe that the rules resulting from such a centralized structure would be based on NYC and Chicago, despite the fact that there isn't evidence to support that.

    It's about a cognitive dissonance in which the increase of freedom in restricted states and cities is butting against the dislike of the federal government. The focus on the perception of NYC and Chicago making the rules is probably necessary to maintain that dissonance. It's like opposing segregation reform at the federal level because of the fear that the worst states in the South will be setting the rules.
     
  11. srawl

    srawl Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    127
    I understand the point but adding laws when laws need to be removed doesnt make much sense...
     
  12. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Shane - the proposal eliminates many restrictions on firearm owners - one new law that eliminates about two dozen horrible infringements - not even counting states restrictions.
     
  13. CZguy

    CZguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,976
    Location:
    Missouri
    In my state laws are seldom repealed, they just stop enforcing them.

    We still have ones on the books to have a man walk ahead of a car to warn people so the horses won't be startled.

    I'm certainly not saying that this is the right way to do things, I'm just acknowledging that that's how it done in Missouri.
     
  14. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,807
    Location:
    ohio
    Let's then issue a national ID card for 1st amendment rights. Must read/write English....must attend formal liberal arts degree program.... must agree with POTUS....

    Slippery slope.
     
  15. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I agree, speaking English should be a requirement of citizenship.

    Guessing you never had to get a permit to legally assemble and exercise your right to free speech? Or are you referring to the huge amount of laws States have that infringe upon our freedom of speech?

    Because there are a bunch of States/Cities infringing upon your right to bear arms...

    Notice how one of those things is not like the other?
     
  16. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    My state do not infringe on my rights to the extent that the fed does

    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; dammitboy was just saying how well it worked - why do you think a centralized federal gov't control over your guns is such a good idea?

    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.
    As to shipping, there aren't a whole lot of regulations now, except involving handguns - which will just get more difficult - you will watch gun shows and FTF sales become illegal, you'll see only brick and mortar FFL's be allowed to do a transfer - and there will be a federal tax in that, you'll see so much added crap stuck into bills here and there - like is done now - that the 2nd will go away from a civilian standpoint

    You folks need to revisit Germany in the 30's, and every other regime that instituted some form of gun registration and see what happened
     
  17. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Well as long as your State doesn't, I guess it's all good! :rolleyes:

    You keep referring to more and more of our gun rights being trampled upon, what's your solution to stop it? I see you badmouthing this person's proposal - but zero positive input on your part.

    Are you just resigned to the idea that eventually we will lose the right to bear arms?
     
  18. Axel Larson

    Axel Larson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Vermont, now Saint Albans
    The solution from my stand point is to keep fighting off bad legislation and to keep giving money when we can to the NRA and other related organizations, as well as to write your senators and congressmen.
    We have won major battles recently DC handgun ban was lifted.
    It is slow, it is painful but we are getting there.
    I would love the NFA to be repealed but not at the cost of the federal government having more play in what happens.
    And the ATF would be involved even more, anyone forgot about fast and furious yet?
     
  19. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,807
    Location:
    ohio
    Honestly .... I would dig my heels in far further to the right, but might be satisfied with that scenario. I already have an ID CHL with my state.... why not a national one?
     
  20. justice06rr

    justice06rr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,604
    Location:
    Florida
    I would probably only agree with #5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

    The rest is really debatable. I understand the person who made the proposal did it with good intentions, but there are just too many factors to consider.

    Although its great that it proposes to even the playing field on firearms laws/regulations on a national level, it will be debated and argued to death and never come to an agreeable outcome for everyone involved.
     
  21. thecarfarmer

    thecarfarmer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Just outside Seattle
    Well, what I've seen out of governments - state, federal, local... doesn't matter which... once they get their foot in the door, they keep inching along, until they get what they wanted.

    Once any government is allowed to oversee/regulate/control something, they will then have an office to do so. The document which allows them control generally is worded so that their scope of oversight is allowed to be expanded - by themselves.

    From the standpoint of staying free, allowing the government to start a new program of oversight is kinda' like allowing Col. Sanders to guard your chicken coop, isn't it?

    -Bill
     
  22. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    OK folks - for those who think that giving in to the antis and libs so you can have a national Gun ID is a great idea with no downside:

    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/democratic-rep-amend-constitution-to-allow-control-of-speech/

    here is a lib calling for liberal control of free speech - if you folks REALLY think you will win, you are so sadly mistaken. Try reading history about what Nazi Germany did to gun owners and every other socialist government

    You want a big central government making the rules? Why not compromise and push for abolishing the states and having us all live under one big central socialist government? Think of the cost savings, think of the minimalizing of states rules against gun ownership;
    "“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

    you folks really need to rethink this BS, because you are giving up freedoms without getting anything from the antis - they l;earned their stance well from Stalin - it is called "Soviet Style Negotiations" - it means there is no "win-win" scenario - it means they win you lose....been there done that on corporate mergers and have had my fair share of doing the negotiations
    YOU will have to compromise, and when you ask them to do so after you give in, they will not

    Look at the news about the current Fiscal Cliff - the lib stance is "give us tax hikes now and we will discuss spending cuts later"

    If you think, when it comes to guns, you are going to win, you are blind to reality

    You will give and give - more than we did in 1968 and 1986, and you will get squat and go home thinking you won.............
     
  23. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    What some seem to either not grasp, or are else comfortable with, is that every power of the federal government is gained by usurping and superceding the power of a state government. Power given away is all but impossible to peacably reclaim. Our Founders SPECIFICALLY FORBADE the federal government to regulate firearms for this very reason!

    As a Texan, 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.

    All bad precedents begin as "reasonable" expediencies.

    I am not a Texas Secessionist, but I understand the anger and fear that drives it. Just in the past month, our president tried - TRIED - to force the State of Texas to submit to regulatory oversight of our voting process BY EUROPEANS - apparently to ensure that we're obeying our own law. Not including that incident, by my count the current governor and AG have filed suit against the US government SIX times to obtain legal injuctions against unconstitutional infrigements of the State's legal rights and authority.

    I don't trust the federal government - especially this one - to regulate car exhaust, much less my RKBA.

    No compromise.
     
  24. srawl

    srawl Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    127
    "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."

    It doesnt say anything about type of guns or who should own them... its a right of the people that "shall not" be infringed... if anything we should have the same weapons as the military in order to form that "well regulated militia." The laws shouldnt have been passed in the first place. Something needs done (which we all agree) but the idea of the a national ID card when we all have state IDs recognized by the national government doesnt seem like the answer... to many variables...
     
  25. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,550
    Location:
    Georgia
    I stopped at #1 as it is a violation of the Second Amendment.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page