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.

  1. srawl

    srawl Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    121
  2. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.
     
  3. Warp

    Warp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,479
    Location:
    Georgia
    I understand why you feel that way, but even Arkansas is part of the United States and is subject to Federal law.
     
  4. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    The point being made here is that the proposed federal law to which we would be "subject" (subjected) would be flagrantly unconstitutional, for reasons previously propounded. We aren't arguing that we shouldn't obey federal law; only that the other States (using the federal legislature as a mechanism) lack authority, and so should not be permitted, to infringe the RKBA outside their own borders.
     
  5. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Scott, are you saying it's ok for states to infringe upon the rkba inside their borders?
     
  6. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,265
    Location:
    NC
    How is the proposed statement any more flagrant than the current laws in TX or any other state? Do you need a permit for handguns? Can you drive to NM and buy a handgun and bring it back? What is so flagrant that even Texas hasn't already done?
     
  7. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I've aware of that and have never claimed otherwise.

    But let's take a look at #1 from the OP:
    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.
     
  8. Warp

    Warp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,479
    Location:
    Georgia
    I agree with your thinking.

    I don't want the federal government doing anything with the RKBA...unless they are simply removing laws from the books, of course.
     
  9. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    No. But that's not the issue raised by the OP's question. I'm arguing against a federalized firearms ownership registry because that is what was, in effect, proposed.

    LarryH, this is my point: whatever Texas has done has been done within the scope of its own sovereign authority, without circumventing the US Constitution.

    Of course, it should also be pointed out that TX doesn't require a permit to buy firearms, has no firearms registration scheme, and the reason I can't buy pistols in other states is that it's against FEDERAL law for me to do so.
     
  10. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Actually it is exactly the issue raised by the OP proposal.

    It tries to eliminate as many regulations state and federal that are an infringement on the rkba.

    It removes barrel length restrictions, state carry restrictions, state to state sales restrictions, magazine restrictions, silencer restrictions, the manufacture date restriction on machine guns, individual state awb restrictions, and would put in place a mechanism to block future regulations at the state and federal level.

    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...
     
  11. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    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.

    As mentioned before, you should read it again.

    Their power is proportional to their representation in Congress, which means that they are a small minority.

    So you were incorrect when you mentioned that we can no longer mail-order firearms to our house from a catalog? Interesting.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  12. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    It would also be a good idea to clarify the shipping capabilities.

    Allowing the states to handle their own safety course requirements can present another set of problems where they can set unrealistic standards for the testing. The range qualification should be no more stringent than the state law enforcement officer qualification.
     
  13. Warp

    Warp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,479
    Location:
    Georgia
    There shouldn't be a range qualification requirement.
     
  14. helitack32f1

    helitack32f1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    519
    Location:
    Lynden, WA
    Exactly!

    And there cannot be a national ID card tied to this either. Period. Just as the new health care law can be used to affect gun ownership, so too can the National ID card. All they have to do is keep raising the price for the ID and that already starts to limit those who can afford to protect and defend themselves.
     
  15. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Should there be a written test qualification requirement?
     
  16. Warp

    Warp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,479
    Location:
    Georgia
    No.
     
  17. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    So how do you validate successful completion of the safety course?
     
  18. Warp

    Warp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,479
    Location:
    Georgia
    You don't.
     
  19. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    People are debating implementation details.... people are talking about infringements such a bill might promise to remove... people are overlooking the fact that if a federal permit is required to keep and bear arms, bureaucrats of the federal government will have absolute authority to decide who can legally keep and bear arms.


    Our Founders absolutely feared this and expressly forbade it! I am surprised by how many people are willing to compromise on the fundamental point of the 2A - no federal infringement on the RKBA - for some nice-sounding promises of a few goodies.
     
  20. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    DB, I first wrote and proposed this November 14, here at THR. I'd like to resubmit it as MY counterproposal to the one being discussed.

    Ratify the following as the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

    "It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."

    Do this, and we'll see how willing the antis are to make "reasonable compromises" on their own end.
     
  21. General Geoff

    General Geoff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    A national ID card required to keep and bear arms, flies in the face of the concept of the Right to keep and bear arms.

    If you have to ask permission, it's not a right.
     
  22. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    This is the proposal I'm submitting at the other forum to keep the conversation going there:

    Being that the 2nd Amendment has been determined by the Supreme Court to be an Individual Right, the following changes are proposed:

    1. A National ID Card shall be issued to any law-abiding citizen that requests one and passes a background check as well as their state safety qualification course. This safety qualification course cannot exceed the requirements placed on state law enforcement.

    1. a) This card is not required, but optional and only issued at the request of the bearer.
    1. b) This card may be renewed every five years.
    1. c) The cost incurred for this card may not exceed $10.00

    2. The bearer will be able to carry open or concealed in any State of the Union without restriction, except where barred by Federal Law.

    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.

    4. The bearer will be able to transport firearms anywhere within the United States, following standard shipping safety practices. The term shipping does not apply to open or concealed carry of a firearm or possession of a firearm while traveling.

    5. The barrel length of a firearm will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

    6. Silencers will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

    7. Magazine capacity will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

    8. The manufacture date of a firearm will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

    9. Cosmetic features of a firearm will not be subject to state or federal government regulation.

    10. Conviction of a violent felony revokes one's right to bear this card.

    11. Citizenship is required to bear this card.

    12. The involuntary commitment to a mental health facility revokes ones right to bear this card.

    14. No new regulations may be added regarding firearms except by a three-fourths vote of the House and Senate.
     
  23. Warp

    Warp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,479
    Location:
    Georgia
    That walks all over state's rights.

    Would be a nice result, though, for gun owners
     
  24. CZguy

    CZguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,973
    Location:
    Missouri
    State's gave up their rights after the civil war.
     
  25. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    You're still talking about reducing regulation by giving all regulatory power to the federal government. The whole point of the 2A is that we were never meant to ask the federal government... we were not to require their consent.

    If you want to reduce regulation, just deregulate. If you actually like the idea of standardized federal regulation, you and I are just not going to come to an understanding.
     

Share This Page