National CC Reciprocity Will Not Solve the Problems

[Laggy]

It kind of is how we were set up to be governed. Individual rights were never really prioritized as heavily in this country. The fact that many of these human rights concepts came well after the founding of our nation, doesn't help matters. Our constitution is so difficult to change that seemingly simple changes like Women's Suffrage require radical action to achieve. We really are in pretty serious need of a modernization of our constitution. France is on its 5th since the French Revolution, which occurred shortly after ours.
But when it comes down to it, our government was written by the aristocrats of the day, with ample protections for aristocrats. Madison's opinion on the Senate is proof of that.

It shouldn't be necessary to move, but because our country is what it is, your choices are limited. If you're in New York or California, you can probably forget about Shall Issue anything. If you're in Texas or Utah, you can kiss an Assault Weapons Ban goodbye.

Great point..protections for aristocrats = keeping guns out of the hands of the poors..

 

[Ivy Mike]

Great point..protections for aristocrats = keeping guns out of the hands of the poors..

Madison described the landed interests as the Minority of the Opulent, and the violent justice of the poors as "an agrarian law."

It would seem that in the late 18th century, the common man could absolutely be an observer of government, but not a participant.
"When I mention the public, I mean to include only the rational part of it. The ignorant and vulgar are as unfit to judge of the modes [of government], as they are unable to manage [its] reins." -Alexander Hamilton

 

[George P]

Shouldn't be necessary to do that. That's defaulting to the state having priority over the people. That's not the way we were set up to be governed in this country.

But it IS the reality, like it or not and it isn't going to change in my lifetime or that of my kids

 

[Laggy]

Madison described the landed interests as the Minority of the Opulent, and the violent justice of the poors as "an agrarian law."

It would seem that in the late 18th century, the common man could absolutely be an observer of government, but not a participant.
"When I mention the public, I mean to include only the rational part of it. The ignorant and vulgar are as unfit to judge of the modes [of government], as they are unable to manage [its] reins." -Alexander Hamilton

I’d like to point out what happened to Hamilton lol

But that was the prevailing attitude of many of the framers.

 

[George P]

Imagine how easy it would be to count votes if only property owners could vote - like it was originally intended

 

[Laggy]

Imagine how easy it would be to count votes if only property owners could vote - like it was originally intended

Wasn’t that to exclude slaves and women? Probably most immigrants. And definitely poors.

But meh. They’ll give anyone a house these days.

 

[wiscoaster]

The fact that many of these human rights concepts came well after the founding of our nation, doesn't help matters.

No, they most certainly did NOT. In fact, they came well before. Research the "Enlightenment philosophers," whose principal was John Locke, and he died in the early 18th century, long before the U.S.A. That's where most of the concepts guiding our Founders came from, and the principals behind our Constitution.

 

[Ivy Mike]

No, they most certainly did NOT. In fact, they came well before. Research the "Enlightenment philosophers," whose principal was John Locke, and he died in the early 18th century, long before the U.S.A. That's where most of the concepts guiding our Founders came from, and the principals behind our Constitution.

I must have missed the part where women could own property and vote in 18th century America. But the point here is that we have added various rights over the years instead of the usual life, liberty and property.

 

[wiscoaster]

I must have missed the part where women could own property and vote in 18th century America. But the point here is that we have added various rights over the years instead of the usual life, liberty and property.

The example you give, that of universal suffrage, isn't a NEW right that was ADDED, it's instead a recognition of a universal right that was improperly and incompletely implemented, and that deficiency subsequently addressed by an additional amendment. The same could be said of abolition.

There are no NEW human rights. There are only those rights that haven't been recognized and respected by governments. I think our original government did quite well, all things considered in its day and age. We've only had to fine tune what they didn't get quite right or chose to leave out for expediency in getting the thing passed. Maybe some more fine-tuning is needed, but nothing they did needs to be tossed out.

 

[George P]

The example you give, that of universal suffrage, isn't a NEW right that was ADDED, it's instead a recognition of a universal right that was improperly and incompletely implemented, and that deficiency subsequently addressed by an additional amendment. The same could be said of abolition.

There are no NEW human rights. There are only those rights that haven't been recognized and respected by governments. I think our original government did quite well, all things considered in its day and age. We've only had to fine tune what they didn't get quite right or chose to leave out for expediency in getting the thing passed. Maybe some more fine-tuning is needed, but nothing they did needs to be tossed out.

So you believe the Constitution and BoR are living documents? The anti do as well. Personally, I prefer Scalia's comment - "the Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say"

 

[Ivy Mike]

The example you give, that of universal suffrage, isn't a NEW right that was ADDED, it's instead a recognition of a universal right that was improperly and incompletely implemented, and that deficiency subsequently addressed by an additional amendment. The same could be said of abolition.

There are no NEW human rights. There are only those rights that haven't been recognized and respected by governments. I think our original government did quite well, all things considered in its day and age. We've only had to fine tune what they didn't get quite right or chose to leave out for expediency in getting the thing passed. Maybe some more fine-tuning is needed, but nothing they did needs to be tossed out.

Nah. The framers specifically limited voting rights. Universal suffrage had to be added, and was added in stages. Black men were given the right to vote decades before women of any color.
You were able to own another person as property until the 1860s.
Adults who happened to be gay didn't gain the right to marry until the 21st century, despite being consenting adults who could consent to any other contract under law.


We may consider these things to be a miscarriage of justice today, but lots of things we think of as rights, had to be added in or corrected after the fact. I don't buy the idea of preexisting human rights though. I take a pretty cynical view that the only rights a person has are the ones that are protected by the society they live in, or that they are able to enforce for themselves. Slavery is a prime example and Dredd Scott a horrible reminder.

 

[Laggy]

No, they most certainly did NOT. In fact, they came well before. Research the "Enlightenment philosophers," whose principal was John Locke, and he died in the early 18th century, long before the U.S.A. That's where most of the concepts guiding our Founders came from, and the principals behind our Constitution.

Magna Carta!

 

[Laggy]

Good stuff.

I would say that human right have always been in flux. Some societies like the Vikings, had some pretty savage women. I’m guessing if you went to take a shield-maidens rights, you’d find the wrong end of her sword.

Hate to say it, but religion, and land ownership have played a big role in who has rights and who doesn’t. Much of the malice against women’s rights is a puritanical view of sin. Many men feel threatened by loose, free women. It excites them, but they want to control it and stamp it out.

At various points slaves, or indentured servants had pathways to freedom and even land ownership. See 17th century America, Bacon’s revolt, etc.

Pagan tribespeople coming to Rome from all over Europe could gain land. Certainly in conquered territories, they could have it for taxes and submitting to the rule of the Romans. Heck, the Romans would even build a temple to one of your gods if it got you to be a tame, contributing Roman Citizen.

So I agree that human rights have always been in flux. The American experiment is no different.

 

[Laggy]

...I think now more than ever, individual rights need to be protected. People want the government to step in and compel action of the opposite side/tribe. That’s dangerous. If the government compels action, it better be for the best reason of all-time, agreed upon by a vast majority of the citizenry.

People want protests shut down because there is looting a few blocks away. That’s not the protesters problem. People want gun rights limited because of criminals. Again, not the law-abiding gun owners problem. Those are law enforcement issues, not individual rights issues. If I die in a plane crash from a hijacker, I don’t want it affect anyone’s future travel plans or travel comfort. If my child gets gunned down at a school, I don’t want my neighbors AK taken away. That’s ridiculous.

Liberties > feelings. Everytime. Born in America 22 year old Muslim kid, child of parents from whatever middle eastern country. Dresses the part. Lives in an integrated neighborhood where hate crimes are visited upon minorities. He’s in college. Never had a criminal record. Maybe a speeding ticket or two. His right to pass a background check and conceal carry as an American citizen must be protected. News wants you to believe he’s a suicide bomber in the making.

Black kid grows up in east LA. Stays out of trouble. Caught drinking at 17. No other crimes. Say he got busted with a joint and did community service, slap on the wrist. Great grades. Now he’s 21 at community college, but still comes home to a crap neighborhood. Dresses the part, sags a little, headphones on with rap music. Takes martial arts classes and decides he needs to get a gun, learn the ins-and-outs of concealed carry and get a permit. You may not like where he lives or how he looks, but his legal right to defend himself and his family > than your feelings about him and his situation and his imagined threat to you.

These may look like anecdotal situations, but I can guarantee you, this is the norm. And I minimized the crimes. Which don’t matter if your pass the background check, does it? I got in tons of trouble as a juvenile, smoked weed until I was 30. Got one DUI at 28. Several suspended license tickets because I went to college 2 hours from where I worked on the weekends and where my girlfriend at the time lived. Lots of run-ins. But nothing violent. I’m now 48. Guaranteed, if you enumerate the events of my life without context, a few out of 10 people would not want me to have a gun. Too bad. People aren’t perfect. There’s barely, maybe a few situations that justify seizing of someone’s constitutional rights. Yet it’s done, or threatened to be done, constantly based off of one group not liking another. Horrific. Our leadership is to blame. I see no color. I see no right and no left in this. Both sides want to control the other and compel their action in different ways, with different motives. Same result. This erases legitimacy of almost any argument that stems from either platform.

*rant complete

 

[wiscoaster]

Personally, I prefer Scalia's comment - "the Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say"

That's my belief as well; I think you misread / misunderstood my comments in this thread.

 

[wiscoaster]

U.S. Constitution v. States' Rights v. Human Rights

1) It is an inherent human right to life.
2) The right to life is enabled by an inherent right to defend that life.
3) The right to defend oneself is recognized (NOT granted) by the national Constitution's Second Amendment.
4) Individual states retain powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.
5) The people of the nation (we the people, in order to form a more perfect union) ARE the government (state and/or Federal).
6) Since the Second Amendment is specifically a right of the people, it is national/Federal in scope.
7) Therefore the Second Amendment accrues to Federal jurisdiction, not state.
8) Leads to: no state has the Constitutional authority to supercede or regulate more strictly than the Federal wrt Second Amendment rights.

So, wrt to the thread's original topic:
1) No state retains the power to deny any other state's concealed carry.
2) No state retains the power to regulate more strictly than the Federal any right granted by the Second Amendment.

Therefore the only Constitutionally acceptable solution to the question of reciprocity is: national Constitutional carry.

Thank you, I'm done.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

It will never happen, so no need to worry.

 

[Craig_AR]

6) Since the Second Amendment is specifically a right of the people, it is national/Federal in scope.
7) Therefore the Second Amendment accrues to Federal jurisdiction, not state.

@wisecoaster,
Your two line logic was the interpretation of the Constitution as amended by the 10th Amendment (reserving powers to the states) until passage of the 14th Amendment. You were doing fine until you added "not state." Since the 14th is now also part of the equation, judicial interpretation has been that the entire Bill of Rights impacts the states as well as the federal government. See my earlier post in this thread.

 

[wiscoaster]

You were doing fine until you added "not state."

Point noted, accepted, and logic amended as accepted.

Does that materially affect my conclusion?

 

[GEM]

We are off topic and run out new points.
If a bill actually is deliberated in Congress and not some politician's PR release, we can revisit.